From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Thu Mar 27 2003 - 12:54:49 MST
Though I have only been scanning the war threads to a limited
extent, I am puzzled why there does not seem to have been a
utilitarian/extropic calculation on when war may be justified.
I'll assume for the moment that all human lives are equal
(of course this isn't accurate from an extropic perspective --
one Eric Drexler is likely to advance extropy much more than
one Iraqi laborer but we will make the assumption of equivalence
for the sake of the discussion).
Saddam, according to a recent PBS special I viewed in the U.S.
is estimated to be responsible for ~190,000 deaths (separate
from war losses). Assuming a regime of ~30 years that works
out to ~6000+ deaths per year. Saddam was born in 1937, making
him 66, assuming he may have a life expectancy of another 10 years,
that means he will be responsible for the deaths of another 60,000
people. Of course if he passes his regime onto one of his sons,
then we could envision this death toll as going on indefinitely.
Will the death toll of the current war rise above 60,000?
I don't know. Its clear that many Iraqis are caught between
a rock and a hard place (go out and get killed or we will
kill your children, your wife, and then you).
But if one does nothing -- then can anyone on this list make
any kind of a reasonable argument that it is highly improbable
that 60,000 people will not die over the next decade due to
the continuation of Saddam's regime?
Now -- pushing the extropic vector just a little bit further
what was the level of discussion on the list of the Rwanda
Massacres? Or what is the discussion of the political
situation in Myanmar? We seem to be woefully deficient in
a balanced discussion of "causes of death" that are unextropic.
Now, getting onto Extropian Principle #7 "Rational Thinking"...
It is entirely irrational for the U.S. or the UK or Australia
to be sacrificing even a single life to save the life of an
Iraqi (assuming that the individuals in these countries have
a better education, better earning capabilities, etc. than
individuals in Iraq.) The only argument that makes any sense
is that we are trying to uplift these individuals -- and that
we are willing to sacrifice ourselves in order to do so.
It isn't a "rational" argument -- it is a human one.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 27 2003 - 13:01:27 MST