From: Greg Jordan (jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu)
Date: Fri Mar 28 2003 - 08:34:52 MST
On Thu, 27 Mar 2003, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> 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).
I don't know how to quantify Mr. Drexler's contribution to advance
'extropy', but I question your or anyone's ability to fully calculate the
value of any human life, its meaningfulness, its contribution to the
happiness of others, its inherent richness and enjoyability. For all you
know, one of those "Iraqi laborers" may be the one who will invent the
medicines that will save your life someday. Ditto could be said for the
children with their brains blown out...
> 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.
I don't think it's very controversial to say that the U.S. stats on
Saddam's kills are questionable. But it stands to reason that the rate of
killings would vary with the amount of opposition to his regime, or the
perception of threat to the regime. The more he tightened power, and
became more confident, the fewer the killings, possibly. And this does not
calculate the quality of life for those who survive.
> 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).
You're also making the assumption that all Iraqis are equally in danger
from Saddam's regime. But in reality there is probably a big
variation. Those who are in politically responsible conditions might be in
greater danger, while those who 'keep a low profile' might have been able
to successfully survive all these many years of Saddam's regime. For them,
the introduction of random variables like U.S. bombing and invasion
increase their odds of injury & suffering & dying.
And anyway, if you are doing a cost/benefit analysis - wouldn't the Iraqis
need to be the ones to make the final conclusion? It's their cost, their
benefit you're analyzing.
> 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.
...And that seems to be one motivation of soldiers I have seen
interviewed, if by "uplift" you mean forced to accept rule by a different
(as yet undescribed) regime.
But there are others I have heard - doing their job (making money, and
pursuing "career goals", even at risk of life), protecting their friends
(who are risking their lives to make money & pursue "career goals"),
etc. Many of the soldiers took the risk of injury and suffering and death
in order to have the "better education", "better earning capabilities",
etc. promised them by military recruitment marketing.
"We" didn't decide to go to war - only the key decision-makers in the Bush
administration, ending with Bush, did. Those who voted for the Bush
administration and who voted for members of congress who gave it the
"blank check" may be considered indirectly responsible. The rest of the
U.S. did not necessarily decide to go to war in any fashion, as having no
role in the decision.
gej
resourcesoftheworld.org
jordan@chuma.cas.usf.edu
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Mar 28 2003 - 08:43:46 MST