From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Apr 14 2002 - 07:55:21 MDT
On Sunday, April 14, 2002 7:02 AM Samantha Atkins samantha@objectent.com
wrote:
>> I don't have a problem with this either. What I was objecting to was
>> the idea that a soldier should have to justify every pull of the
trigger
>> in a firefight to ordinary civilian standards after the fact. In
>
> No, but he does have to justify them by international military
> standards. War is not regular civilian life. But it also
> should not be an utter free-for-all slaugther devoid of any
> honor or humanity whatsoever.
Actually, I think the use of force is very unExtropian -- increases
disorder -- for the most part. Even the counterexamples are
self-defense and retaliation can lead to overreaction. So it needs to
be strictly regulated and held to a much higher standard than "ordinary
civilian" ones, IMHO -- lest it turn into Samatha's "utter free-for-all
slaugther" -- whether that slaughter takes place during war or afterward
during occupation. (The latter seems the case with the US occupation of
Okinawa, for example. See _Blowback: The Costs and Consequences of
American Empire_ by Chalmers Johnson.)
In this vein, don't you think the concept of rules of war, which I
believe originated in the Middle Ages, are Extropian, since their goal
is to limit war, especially limiting who or what can be a target in war,
what constitutes grounds for war, and when it must cease? (See _War:
Ends and Means_ by Payl Seabury and Angelo Codevilla, especially chapter
10.)
Cheers!
Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:30 MST