[ExI] [Soc]Complex Adaptive Systems - Tending Always to 50/50 split)
possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
Fri Oct 17 02:41:18 UTC 2008
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 7:05 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 12:13 PM, John Grigg
> <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Are you saying international politics is a zero sum game? LOL!
> No, sometimes the net risult is minus than zero. :-)
> More seriously, one cannot really expect each and every international
> game to allow for win-win solutions, can one?
> > And that's just how I like it! ; ) But I am right.
> So sayeth the Ayatollah... :-)
A glib answer (hey, I'm often quite guilty of that myself!) that is totally
inaccurate. What you cut out was my comment about the United States and
other democracies having an internal moral compass that is generally
self-correcting over time. This comes in the form of a constitution (that
is respected), three branches of government to divide up the power and
reduce the chance of tyranny, an empowered judicial system, multiple
political parties (rather than a totally stacked deck), a citizenry who have
not been cowed by the leadership and secret police, relatively honest
politicians and judges, government enforcement organizations empowered (at
least sometimes) to successfully prosecute those in power who break the law
and exploit their status, journalists who have not been deeply intimidated
and muzzled by the state, a military that respects civilian rule, and
basically clean elections.
Yes, the U.S. still has a ways to go. But put China, Iran or Russia to the
test regarding most or all of these key points and they will come up
horribly short because they are ultimately *tyrannies.*
> > Russia used classic political gamesmanship ("we must protect our bullied
> > friends there") as an excuse to invade. Politics in the region tends to
> > an ugly bloodsport.
> Not as in the rest of the world, you mean? :-)
Hey, I bet the rest of the world learned it from *you* Italians (or should I
say "Romans!"). ; ) But then again the Medieval Italians were probably the
greatest students/masters of political gamemanship.
> >> In more general terms, I think most people, and transhumanists
> >> especially, are probably better off in a multipolar world than in a
> >> unipolar one, was it just for the competitive dynamics that the first
> >> still seems able to maintain better than the second.
> > Yes, I heartily agree due to the fact that technological competition
> > nations and political blocs creates so much needed innovation. But if
> > things overheat we will see conflict and war vastly worse than what two
> > world wars delivered.
> Why, wouldn't it be nice to have only the good of a cold war without
> the bad and the risks of it? :-)
Keep in mind, sometimes cold wars get white hot... But it is a risk
humanity will be taking and hopefully we will not only survive *but thrive.*
John : )
> Stefano Vaj
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat