On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Chuck Kuecker wrote:
> What is so humane about bullets and bombs? How about edged weapons and
> clubs? Rocks?
War between "professional" soldiers has some degree of legitimacy to it.
In some respects it is like "dueling" of the 16th and 17th centuries.
An extropic perspective I would think argues that disputes should be
settled through reason. I don't know what it would say when they
absolutely cannot be settled that way. I.e. one understands the
other person's perspective, agrees that the position is completely
logical but refuses to give ground on your perspective because it
is based on ones own unique experiences (as their position is based
on theirs).
In such situations, settling the dispute by a method agreed upon by
both parties (if one cannot agree to disagree) seems the best solution.
However the settlement process should avoid to the greatest degree
possible the involvement of third parties. That is why chemical
and biological weapons and mines (and bombs that miss their targets)
are much less desirable than pistols at 20 paces.
> War is a filthy business. Let's eliminate it altogether. Suggestions are
> welcome.
Increase the security and survivability of others such that "war"
is not a choice where the potential benefits are perceived to a
large extent to justify the risks involved.
Also decrease large hierarchical political structures where too
much distance between the people at the top and people at the
bottom make it easy to send people you don't know off to war
(the Soviet troops in Afghanistan come to mind).
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:29 MDT