>>23
There are none, that's the point. It's what works to draw an acceptable conclusion to a line of discussion.
>>22
>Profit can be basic sustinence, not necessarily money.
This is true, but not when speaking about the constant promotion of "science is best" in consumer cultures. It can be demonstrated that this fundamentalism is linked to "what makes most money", and is in total disregard for quality of life.
>we have to observe the relevant for which we can use to survive
Something we achieved a very long time ago without modern science or mathematics, yet we went on to develop these disciplines nonetheless.
>We now have the luxury in modern times for most people to dwell on these questions and occasionally they may prompt us to take a different look at things and may be of some success but that view is far out there and mostly unrewarding with practical value.
Well, you've just proved my point in more ways than one. The term "practical value" here is analogous to "makes a financial profit", unless you care to try to wriggle out of it?
Two basic flaws in the points you raise are that (a) consumer societies are inherently superior to all others (b) consumer societies are inevitable outcomes of human endeavour, both without foundation. You also overlook the fact that in order to maintain our current consumer societies we surpress and deny resources to over 80% of the world population, hardly a good thing for humanity as a whole would you say?