There are a few problems with this.
It takes a single generation to change a society beyond recognition. If the
people of Afganistan were liberated and went back to being a more
westernised country like they seem to have been before the fundamentalist
bullies dug in over there, then a single generation (25 years) could see
them becoming one of the greater forces for good on the planet. As an
example I believe Ireland's biggest export today is software. Who would
have thought it a bare 20 or 30 years ago?
Another problem is the fact that the terrorists have dispersed to at least
20 countries around the planet. Like the Alien movies, if we cut the
monster its blood will cause us much death and destruction.
Even worse is that if we take a lawless attitude then the opposition to us
grows rather than lessens.
Lastly, life enhancing solutions are vastly superior to bloody ones. In
this particular case I think *only* life enhancing ones can work. I think
in this situation death and destruction will simply be magnified by more
death and destruction. There are some cases where force and death can be
justified and even be the only solution, but I don't think this is one of them.
That said, as Robert notes, it is useful to dispassionately consider *all*
paths... even if they lead to mortifying conclusions. Then we can get a
proper perspective on what should really be done.
Cheers,
- Miriam
At 05:10 AM 17/09/2001, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>I know that by raising this issue, I am going to take a large
>amount of flak. But that is the purpose of the Extropian
>list -- to engage in rational discussion of ideas -- even
>if those ideas may seem repulsive at first.
>
>Those of us who believe in the extropian/transhumanist perspectives
>expect that the world is likely to undergo a significant adjustment
>of its perspective over the next 10-30 years. These will include
>such developments as artificial intelligence, molecular nanotechnology,
>the elimination of aging and death and the feasibility of uploading
>our minds into much more robust hardware.
>
>We also know, from calculations that I and Eliezer (independently)
>have done, that the annual cost between where we are now and the
>full manifestation of what we expect is feasible is of the order
>of 50 million lives per year. That is approximately 10,000 times
>the number of lives lost in the WTC attacks.
>
>According to the CIA world fact book, the population of Afganistan
>is ~25 million people. In contrast the population of the U.S.
>is 280+ million people and the world is 6+ billion. It is highly
>unlikely that the population of Afganistan will make a significant
>contribution to the development of the advanced technological era
>we expect. In fact their ongoing existence seems likely to be
>directed towards negatively impacting that development. To the
>extent that the activities of individuals in Afganistan, or the
>support of such individuals by the leaders or population at large
>delay the development of the era we anticipate, we can assign
>a cost to it.
>
> From my perspective the analysis is relatively simple. If the
>population of Afganistan, or the people supported by them
>delay the onset of an era of advanced technological capabilities
>by 6 months or more, the value of their lives is negative.
>
> From a rational position, *if* the case can be made that the
>Afgani position & politics is likely to result in the diversion
>of resources and delay the development of the technologies we anticipate
>developing by more than 6 months, then a plan of genocide to
>bury the country in rubble seems justified.
>
>Is this feasible? It would appear to be the case. 100 Minutemann III
>ICBMs could launch 300+ Ktons each at Afganistan. This roughly
>translates to over 1 ton TNT/person. While this is unlikely to
>kill everyone, it is likely to knock the population back to the
>sub-cave-person level and make a large negative impact on the
>feasibility of staging terrorist activities from that country.
>
>Of course the downside will be in the likelyhood that it may have
>in promoting individuals and countries in developing similar
>capabilities. But of course once the line has been crossed, there
>are relatively few barriers towards the use of nuclear weapons to
>continue knocking down potential terrorists as needs require.
>
>Robert
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
Q. What is the similarity between an elephant and a grape?
A. They are both purple... except for the elephant.
---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=---------=------
http://werple.net.au/~miriam
http://members.optushome.com.au/miriame
Virtual Reality Association http://www.vr.org.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:49 MDT