From: avatar (avatar@renegadeclothing.com.au)
Date: Fri Jan 24 2003 - 04:05:07 MST
I find it strange that one's position to comment on something is somehow linked to one's interest. The fact that one of my parents was persecuted by Sovet Union doesn't make my (or her) views necessarily more rational or well argued. It may impinge on the emotional reality for an ordinary person. For a while my father was left-wing (hardline New Left Socialist, not Communist) so I guess some people can get on despite politics. I think Tipler's wife is a Christian.
Nanotechnology is going to make available everyday goods for the world. In such a context, which must inevitably lead to greater power for the currently underdeveloped countries, I have always argued in favour of sponsoring democratic nations, ones with respect for human rights, rather than focussing on laissez-faire capitalism vs. social democracy. It is interesting that Australia took the Kissinger realpolitik approach (including under both left and right wing governments) somewhat modified by an unswerving understanding that Australia relied on the US nuclear umbrella for ultimate (Anglo-Celtic brotherhood) security. I argued from the mid 80s that we should sponsor such countries as Thailand, South Korea and the Phillipines as they moved towards greater democracy, rather than bowing up to pseudo-democracies with genocidal regimes and racist electoral structures such as Malaysia and Indonesia. (I am not of course, anti-Indonesian or anti-Malaysian.) Not many thought my views sensible then. It's an argument the ancient Athenians went through time and again with regard to their empire. In some respect America is in the same boat with regard to its economic empire. Democracies are always truer friends of other democracies when it comes to the crunch.
I don't read the generic or political Iraq and war posts. I get enough of it everywhere, and the arguments are dumb, often on both sides. I personally don't think human rights take sides, nor avoidable deaths. Whatever the cause. This bothers me more than national politics. Therefore for me the issues are deaths due to Saddam (past and ongoing), deaths due to sanctions, deaths in any war (probably low) and potential deaths due to any future nuclear terrorism (thanks to India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran etc.) [It is claimed the US was successful in dissuading Argentina, Brazil, the former South Africa, Taiwan and South Korea from this course: however it apparently allowed Israel to build 200 small nuclear weapons and has not required it to publically acknowledge this.] Why do I think this? Because every citizen of the world who makes it to the mid 2010s can be effectively immortal, and I wouldn't want to deny this choice to anyone. Little things are easy to fix up, big things are hard to fix up.
Towards Ascension
Avatar Polymorph
34 After Armstrong
In Celebration of the Techno-Rapture
www.paradigm4.com.au/way
Maximum choice and minimum non-consensual force
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:02 MST