Optimistic Scenario

Bill Stoddard bill@wstoddard.com
Tue, 18 Mar 2003 10:32:21 -0500


Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Mar 2003, Bill Stoddard wrote:
> 
> 
>>Grrrrr.... Even if the "optimistic" scenario plays out, there will be a 
>>segment of the world populartion that will be unable to admit that they 
>>were wrong.  These people are irrational fools who get their life 
> 
> 
> It is irrational to believe that you're rational. No one is that.

I'll not touch that thank you very much :-)

> 
> "Wrong" implies a single frame of reference. 

Nor that.

> Unlike physics, human world
> models differ in an irreconsilable way. I'd suggest sticking to a more
> utilitarian approach: the hedonistic imperative. You can still argue about
> each individual model of current decisions resulting in a funneling out of
> bifurcating future realities until we're all blue in the face, but a
> really short time window and a rough tally (bodycount, own QoL assessment
> integrated over population) do help to objectivize the metric.
> 
> 
>>meaning by hating other people. For these folks, hate is the end, not 
>>the means. In this regard, they're not much different from your run of 
>>the mill uneducated ignorant racist. Disgusting.
> 
> 
> I remind you that our firmware has not been reflashed since the neolithic.  
> Primates are not nice people in general (that's why monkeys and apes make
> for lousy pets), and humans are no exception. Our current society model 
> (which has been having problems) is built around centralism.
> 
> Centralism is vulnerable to assymetric warfare, and agressive posturing
> generates hate fostering it in an autofeedback process. 

This comment is, ummm, volcano like :-)  Pseudo scientific sound bytes 
just don't cut it for me. Show me a rigorous analysis along these lines.

> Israel is not a
> happy place, and US culture has not been acclimatized to living with
> terror, especially WoMD terror. 
> 
> 9/11 did not come out of clean blue skies. The next one is going to be a
> lot bigger, and part of the fallout will come from the current campaign.  

This campaign stands a very good chance of significantly reducing the 
possibility of that happening if it goes even close to planned (IMHO of 
course. Could be wrong and I'd be the first to admit it). Since you 
bring up 9/11... the radical Islamists hate everyone not like them 
(including everyone on this list).  Throwing them bones is not a viable 
long term solution.  The U.S. of A will definitly be the target of 
future terrorist attacks and some of them may be quite nasty. If/when 
they happen, the perps (and anyone associated with them) will be delt 
with harshly.

> It is important to become aware of your actions and their assessments by
> other players as technology gives an intrinsic and growing edge to
> attackers rather then defenders.

Um... I recall other posts on this list stating (no, screaming with 
righteous indignation would be closer to the tone) that technology would 
be worthless in the US involvement in Afganistan.  The nature of 
technology I believe will make the killing more efficient: on -both- 
sides.  This will end in one of two ways... either the rogue nations 
will be taken out of play (by their own good decisions or by the 
military force of the free world) sooner, or they will persist on the 
path of propagating WMD's and, after the free world is subject to WMD 
attacks, the free world will depopulate the rogue nations. I hope it 
never comes to that because lots of innocents will get caught in the middle.

Bill