From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Apr 02 2003 - 23:55:03 MST
Lee Corbin wrote:
>
>
> The point needs to be made over and over that the pre-1989
> world was a LOT DIFFERENT than now. The West was fighting
> for its life against the Soviet play for world domination.
Actually, there is some argument that the situation was never
quite so much like that as US intelligence and defense
communities claimed. But it sure was great for justifying a lot
of nasty things. Of course, post 1989 we didn't exactly change
our spots.
> They devoted 14% of their GNP to military uses, but would
> have devoted much more than that if they'd been capable of it.
>
> The choice, as Max Plumm has eloquently explained, was never
> between "democracy" and "tyranny" in a developing country,
> but between "pro-U.S. authoritarianism" and "pro-Soviet
> totalitarianism" in those places. It's still an open
> question even today whether democracy is at all possible
> in Iraq.
>
This is a gross simplification that I doubt very much was the
case in most of the things we were involved in. It is hard to
see how it had anything to do with most our actions outside of
Cuba in Central America or with any of our actions in Latin
American countries or with most of our actions in the MidEast
except for Afghanistan. The fight against communisum moved out
of the McCarthy era into our foreign policy as justification for
all things. Communist were doubtless considered to be behind
anyting anywhere that wasn't going quite as we wished it to go.
We really shouldn't believe such rhetoric as "we were
fighting communism and that is why we did all these things"
without a lot of careful examination.
>>"power corrupts" in the usual formulation.
>
>
> Let's suppose that the neo-cons get their way in the next
> few U.S. elections, and that after Iraq, other anti-Western
> tyrannical regimes are also subjugated. Moreover, along
> with the worst fears of many, let's suppose that American
> hegemony in the world continues to grow. What is the
> probability in this case that the corruption of which you
> speak will develop?
>
Corruption isn't already pretty obviously present in US
political and financial elites? Really?
> Will it be different from 1945? It is not thought that
> the U.S., in most areas of the world the single superpower,
> really got out of control then. Frankly, unless there is a
> big change in the nature of the American people, I can't see
> how the United States will become aggressive or imperial any
> time soon.
>
So Bush's speech about us maintaining our dominance over all the
rest of the world in perpetuity and considering it our right and
duty to strike and even strike preemptively anywhere we believe
our safety and interests to be threatened is not aggressive or
imperial in any way? What exactly would agressive and imperial
look like then? I wouldn't want to overlook it in my confusion.
>>You know, if we were sufficiently bigger than anyone else, we could have done
>>more to spread extropian ideals and more to inhibit them than anyone else,
>>with a net effect of spreading but a real inhibitory effect as well.
>
>
> Okay, then it remains to be spelled out by anyone up to the
> challenge: in what ways has U.S. economic and military
> hegemony during the last *fifteen* years resulted in anti-
> extropian tendencies?
>
Hmmm. Attempting to outlaw stem cell research could become
universal, the religious right forcing various positions such as
anti-abortion universally today, the US patent craziness killing
many lines of research and development worldwide, the US backed
IMF scheme leeching the developing world of wealth and
possibilities to add to or participate in creating an extropic
future.
My greatest worry is that our pattern of aggression and tanking
economy fuels ever more reaction and terrorism which fuels ever
more agression and shredding of rights at home and increasing
downward economic spiral as well. At some point I would not at
all be surprised by many nations valuing some other currency
much more centrally than the dollar. Which would make our
economic woes much worse as we owe some of those nations
trillions in debt. Quite honestly there is a real possibility
that what this country is doing today could lead directly to
this species not making it past its post-industrial stage. Or
do y'all think you will have the personal freedom and financial
health necessary to create say an FAI or continue to optimize
your life expectancy, personal computational environment and
capabilities if the economy continues to tank, security comes
before freedom and innovation, and one-sided total government
surveillance becomes the norm? Frankly I do not see how.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 02 2003 - 23:55:39 MST