From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Apr 10 2003 - 22:49:03 MDT
--- Samantha Atkins <samantha@objectent.com> wrote:
> Michael Wiik wrote:
>
> > Michael S. Lorrey wrote:
> >
> >> b) transhumanist technologies can only be safely developed if the
> >> nations of the world are all peaceful and democratic nations of
> free
> >> peoples. In a world of nanotech, AI, etc., low trust societies
> cannot
> >> be permitted to exist. All human beings must grow up and learn to
> >> rationally evaluate their own rational long term self interest.
> This
> >> can only occur in free, high-trust societies.
>
> I don't see how it is remotely possible to create a world of
> both freedom and fairly full access to technology - which I
> believe requires greatly increasing the stake and buy-in and
> perception of benefit by most of the worlds people - by
> attacking them. Attacks give the opposite message that the
> world is a very unsafe place and that they had best use whatever
> technology to develop defensens and counters to those attacking
> them. Teaching that it is legitimate to preemptively strike
> those who may possibly someday strike you is an even more sure
> way to insure that transhumanist tech will be used for great
> destructrion and danger. I would be hard pressed to think of a
> policy more unextropic in its likely consequences.
Given your other views, I'm not suprised. Your problem is that you are
viewing the rest of the world as if they all view the world the same
way as you. They don't. Especially the muslim world does not.
Particularly the Arab world does not. In the arab world, force is
respected, compassion is spit upon.
The current events bear this out. The outrage current in the muslim
world today about our victory over Hussein is not so much that we won,
though there is shock at that, it is disgust at Saddam for putting up
such a pathetically weak resistance to the infidels. For that, people
slap his face with the soles of their shoes. They feel humiliated.
It is really wrong to keep claiming that our policy in Iraq is a policy
of pre-emption. It makes you look foolish. Any thinking person
understands that Iraq violated, repeatedly, the cease fire agreement
that stopped the first Gulf War (but did not end it, contrary to
popular belief). Thus, our actions are simply a reinstatement of
hostilities at a higher level (since we have been regularly attacking
SAM and other sites on a regular basis for the last 12 years).
As for pre-emption itself, it is exceedingly foolish to think that any
thinking person would have any other policy in a world where WMD are
becoming easier and more affordable for any tin pot thug to get ahold
of. One just does not let such threats exist if one expects to keep
one's job (or get reelected), especially in the post 9/11 world.
Like the Roman wars against Carthage, Americans simply do not tolerate
attacks on the homeland, especially with sneak attacks of elephants
(airliners into skyscrapers) through the back door. The muslim world
will have its technological soil sown with salt if need be to prevent
another 9/11. America will do what it takes to prevent this from
reoccuring. It seems our solution is to sow muslim soil with democracy,
the very freedom that muslim dissidents have been clamoring for.
They'll get their freedom, and if they use it, like Iran, to sponsor
more anti-western terror, they'll get spanked down again.
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
"Pacifists are Objectively Pro-Fascist." - George Orwell
"Treason doth never Prosper. What is the Reason?
For if it Prosper, none Dare call it Treason..." - Ovid
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Apr 10 2003 - 22:58:00 MDT