[extropy-chat] My Dilemma

[Lee Corbin]

The Avantguardian writes

> --- Lee Corbin <lcorbin at tsoft.com> wrote:
> 
> > Stuart LaForge <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > --- Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I find vindicating technical progress by killing
> > > > people and destroying infrastructure morally
> > > > abhorrent.
> > > 
> > > Even leaving aside morality as being fuzzy and
> > > relative, it is still highly irrational. By common
> > > sense cause and effect, one reaps what one sows.
> > > So if you only justify investing in technological
> > > progress in the name of war,
> > 
> > ...at least up to whatever sense it makes to talk
> > about societies as a whole "choosing" anything.
> 
> Why doesn't it make sense that societies choose?
> Societies choose all the time. They choose the prices
> of stocks, bonds, and securities on a daily basis.

We must keep clear the distinction between *consciously*
choosing, such as governments setting policy, and 
ordinary and ongoing development. An analogy occurs
with your body: you decide to jump out of the airplane
but you don't decide to become a bit scared while doing
it.  Another obvious example: you don't decide what your
blood pressure will be, at least up until the time you
take conscious deliberate actions to lower it.

> > (Did you back in the cold war days favor, I wonder,
> > unilateral disarmament by those countries where you
> > were free to give out such suggestions? I am very
> > glad that Western nations did not succumb to those
> > memes.)
> 
> If I was as sophisticated back then as I am now, I
> would have favored a gradual disarmament. Disarming
> 25% of our nukes and waiting to see what the other
> side did, would not have hurt us.

Kissinger said, "We found that if we build, they build.
We found that if we don't build, they build."

> If they had followed suit, the world might have been
> a very different place right now. All our stubborn
> brinksmanship got us is a black market for nukes and
> every two-bit dictator or angry sheik trying to get
> his hands on one. 

I simply cannot understand why people in the West are
so naive. Reminds me of the incident mentioned in
"The God that Failed". The British Communist Party was
undecided what course of action to take: if they came
out in favor of a certain candidate, it would actually
hurt him. But if they didn't he'd get much less support.

An Eastern European Communist attending their meeting
suggested simply, "Well, just work behind the scenes
campaigning for him under cover, and if anything, make
a public declaration against him."

"But that would be a lie!", exclaimed the British
communist. It is said that even Stalin got a chuckle
out of this.

It must occur to you that many enemies cannot be
negotiated with. You defeat them, or they defeat
you.

> > For sure, we are glad that over the long haul
> > history seems to gradually favor peace over war.
> 
> History favors survival whether by war or peace. I
> don't find the world any more peaceful now than it was
> historically.

Then you haven't read enough history. The present era
beginning in 1946 has been by far the most peaceful in
history, in terms of the chances that a given individual
will be involved in war.

> While in the less fortunate parts of the world, like
> Darfur, there is blatant genocide happening. 

Yes, and no Western nation (as if any other nations would
care---it took Great Britain until the 19th century to
be the first to consciously foster humanitarianism for
other nations) can simply demand that genocide anywhere
stop.  The governments engaging in genocide, such as in
Darfur or Rwanda, rightly sense the weakness of the west.
They're not afraid, and rightly so.

Lee