How best to spend US$200 billion? RE: `twisted ethics prevalent o n the extropy board'

From: Emlyn O'regan (oregan.emlyn@healthsolve.com.au)
Date: Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:41:44 MDT

  • Next message: Robin Hanson: "Re: Investing"

    I ask the question relevant to this subject further down (scroll past tired
    war drivel)

    > > Matus wrote:
    > > > > >more it effects me' and 'removing a murderous tyrant is
    > > > morally as bad as
    > > > > >being a murderous tyrant'
    > > > >
    > >
    > > This bit's from Damien B:
    > > > > Inverted commas in this context imply that these are
    > > > quotations and that I
    > > > > have made those statements. I did not. Don't do that again.
    > > > >
    > > >
    > >
    > > Matus (Michael Dickey?) replied again:
    > > > The former is a paraphrase of your moral principles
    > stated in previous
    > > > discussions, the later is a paraphrase of Emlyn's.
    > >
    > > I'm pretty sure that I didn't say that. Got a direct quotation?
    > >
    > > Emlyn
    > >
    >
    > You said in response to Max Plumm:
    >
    > Max Plumm said, amongst other things...
    > " This is even more appalling when one considers that every
    > civilian life
    > lost in Iraq could've been saved had Saddam Hussein simply
    > relinquished
    > power by the time of the U.S. imposed deadline. "
    >
    > This is the second time you've said this in the last day or
    > two. You don't
    > also say "This is even more appalling when one considers that
    > every civilian
    > life lost in Iraq could've been saved had the coalition of
    > the willing not
    > attacked in the first place." Why not?
    >
    > Emlyn
    >
    > To which I responded:
    >
    > He probably didnt say that because it is completely absurd.
    >

    Not true. No war, no war casualties. I will grant you that people may have
    died by the actions of their government, somewhat counteracting the
    difference between war and peace (slightly).

    Remember, though, that you must also count the rioting and general civilian
    disturbance that has followed the war, and all the casualties incurred
    there, as part of the toll of the war.

    > It is difficult for me to even began to coalesce the reasons
    > why such a
    > statement is repulsive to me as an extropian and an person
    > who values human
    > life.

    Come on, that's a bit strong. The statement wasn't supposed to support or
    oppose the war itself; I was attempting to point out that there are two
    sides to the coin of who is responsible for deaths in Iraq. I really have to
    strongly object to the idea that an aggressive, invading power bears no
    responsibility for the deaths; it *always* does. Sometimes that cost is
    warranted, as it may well yet turn out to be in this case. However, it is
    unescapable that when you attack a sovereign country and kill its citizens,
    you bear the responsibility for those deaths. Anyone is allowed self
    defense.

    As far as "as an extropian" goes, I am quite unconvinced that you have
    evaluated this war action using the tools of an extropian. Is state
    aggression dynamist? Does it enhance liberty? Is it constructive, does it
    advance our knowledge of ourselves or the universe? Is it rational (in the
    worst realpolitik sense perhaps). War, as a tool, is possibly one of the
    least extropic choices that you can make. It is statist, it interferes with
    liberty, it destroys with abandon. This is not to say that I think war is
    always unquestionably wrong. It is that war is the tool of last resort, even
    then to be questioned, and the aggressor must always carry the stain of the
    inevitable blood on its collective hands.

    > Regardless of your opposition to the Iraq war, had the
    > goal of the
    > coalition been simple to remove Saddam just because they
    > wanted to, this
    > would have *still* had more moral validity than a murderous dictator
    > remaining in power, simply because he was a murderous
    > dictator. Dictators
    > have *no right* to be dictators!

    It may very well have had more moral validity, but you are comparing two
    negative numbers of great magnitude.

    Let me pose a different question:
    A little googling (not all that much, so I could be mistaken) tells me that
    the Iraq war has/will cost the US government (ie: the US people) between
    US$100 and US$200 billion. That's a lot of money.

    You can look at a figure like that as an extropic potential. The US has
    spent US$200 billion in extropic potential in waging this war. Forgetting
    questions of moral validity, etc etc, I would ask the list this:

    Given the choice, what would you rank as the most extropic way to expend
    US$200 billion?

    I might post a response to this myself; I'll have to think on it.

    >
    > Every single person who died in the coalition war did so ONLY
    > because Saddam
    > did not want to give up his control over the 20 million or so
    > people of
    > Iraq.

    That's not correct. Choices were made on both sides, and certainly each side
    carries a moral burden (assuming some consistent set of rules). The
    agressors hands can never be clean.

    > Please explain to me your ethical principles that
    > place his choice in
    > this conflict of staying in power and opposing the coalition
    > efforts in a
    > morally valid catagory.
    > I simply can not fathom how any extropian can
    > consider Saddam's actions in this situation as morally valid.

    I don't defend Saddam Hussein. I defend neither side - big negative numbers.
    There's no necessity to hand out black and white hats; the world is not
    boolean (unless we are in a sim :-)

    > Given his
    > past track record of murder, future likely hood of murder,
    > track record of
    > wars and aggressiveness, systematic effort to wipe out the
    > kurds, slaughter
    > of some 50,000 shiites, suspicions of harboring WMD, economic control
    > resulting in the untolds thousands of deaths, etc. etc I can
    > not even began
    > to understand how you place the moral culpability of those
    > deaths on the
    > people attempting to STOP that, instead of the person
    > choosing and insisting
    > that he must continue it.

    Well, that's not actually true. The coalition of the willing went in to stop
    development and use of WMDs. Laudable self interest, if it is true (??).
    However, the saving of the iraqi people was *not* the driver for this
    action.

    >
    > To which you did not respond.

    You are on my killfile. Sorry. I only see your posts second hand in other's
    replies.

    >
    > Just to clarify, I shall ask you the same question I asked
    > Damien, and you
    > can choose to not answer as he has of course.
    >
    > Is Saddam Hussain morally culpable for the deaths of the
    > civilians in the
    > Coalition lead effort to remove said murderous tyrant from
    > power, or is the
    > coalition morally culpable?
    >
    > Michael Dickey

    Both share some of the burden, of course. I believe that the coalition must
    wear the majority, as I've said above. This is balanced by an altered future
    that is the result of their actions; how much so is impossible to say. When
    compared to the aftermath in Afganistan (ie: not stable democracy) it is
    very difficult, I think, to say thus far how much the war is justified by
    the result.

    You are right that I am against the Iraq war. It is because, as I've said
    above, from an extropian standpoint it stinks. I wont outline it again
    (because I have above), but I really think that it should be clear that it
    must be a tool of last resort, if to be used at all. Not only is it a
    (spectacular) waste of resources and lives, it decreases our freedoms at
    home.

    Emlyn



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 18:54:12 MDT