From: Steve Davies (steve365@btinternet.com)
Date: Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:44:19 MST
Michael Butler wrote
> If no one else does, I might be forced to unilaterally write an
> exegesis of this.
>
> It relates in some ways to the Solution Unsatisfactory for/of AIs,
> too, so I'm going to mention Eliezer Yudkowsky here. Hi, Eliezer!
>
Thanks for this reference. It does remind me very much of "Solution
Unsatisfactory". Some years later Heinlein pointed out that while we now had
several kinds of WMD we had not even developed an unsatisfactory solution to
the problem they presented.
Basically I think that the diagnosis is pretty accurate but in some ways not
pessimistic enough. However I think that the prescription is both
unrealistic and potentially disastrous both for America and the rest of the
world. My points of agreement first.
1. It is true that the classic idea of sovereignty is now both dangerous and
outdated and not just because of WMD. It's worth remembering that the
concept of sovereignty itself was formulated in a specific place and time
(France 1580s/90s) as a response to a political impasse arising from a
change in military organisation and technology. It isn't an eternal feature
of political arrangements.
2. A very important point is the bad effects of the growing lack of
competition between states and the growth of states that are not viable by
conventional standards. Apart from anything else this removes the main
incentive for elites to adopt sensible economic and social policies - Latin
America is a classic demonstration of this. I also agree that it does lead
to a lack of realism on the part of national elites.
My main critical responses (for now)
3. It isn't clear to me why Muslims are more prone to fantasising and lack
of realism than others as a result of the lack of competition in the state
system (a shorthand way of talking about the end of imperialism BTW). Surely
elites in other parts of the world are affected just as much by the
incentives this produces? The only factor he sets out is the impact of oil
revenues. However other parts of the world have windfall oil revenues
without it producing this kind of fantasising (eg Nigeria, Venezuela). Also
there are plenty of Islamic fantasists in places that have not had this kind
of windfall. I think you have to consider the fact that there is something
specific and peculiar about the Islamic Middle East's response to modernity,
which is about more than the weakness of the Westphalian state system.
Perhaps even more alarming, radical Islam may just be the first example of a
trend, of cultic oppositional subcultures that reject and resist modernity
by violent means.
4. The article connects the problems posed by WMD to the malfunctioning of a
system of sovereign states. The assumption is you need a state to create
such devices or supply them to crazies such as Al Quaida. Why? I just don't
see this. I'm afraid I am more pessimistic than he is in some ways, I think
you don't need to be a state or have the backing of one to cause huge havoc,
given the interconnected and centralised organisation of our civilisation.
5. My main criticism is this. His solution to the problem is something
called neo-sovereignty, efectively an Americam Empire (ok a benign hegemony
if you prefer). Why should the second rank powers put up with this? All the
historic precedents suggest that a policy like this will simply produce an
alliance of other lesser powers against the hegemon which will raise the
costs of such a policy (in every sense) to an unacceptably high level. It's
no good saying "They'll accept it because it's in their interest". The
response is likely to be "Thanks, but no thanks".
Steve D.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 13 2003 - 14:54:13 MST