From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Wed Jun 26 2002 - 01:25:18 MDT
Anders Sandberg wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 10:06:11PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
> No. Treating a symptom (lack of food and lack of food production)
> without dealing with the cause (lack of rule of law, lack of respect
> for human rights) with replicating technology can be extremely
If you don't treat the symptom as well as the cause then
millions die. Stark, simple. Feed them now and institute the
reforms to the degree possible over time.
> dangerous. If the leadership/thugs of such a region could use these
> technologies to strengthen their hold, say by making weapons, they
It is not easy to convert sacks of rice to weapons if there is
no entity willing to trade weapons for rice or buy the rice or
if such diversion of the aid is forcefully prohibited by troops
that make sure the food goes to the people.
> would welcome them. If not, they would fight them. And the UN and most
> relief organisations will not give help to regions if the local rulers
> claim this is unwelcome.
Why should the leaders fight against their people surviving? If
the UN is an organization that cares about human welfare then I
believe it should bring in the aid regardless of what local
leaders say if the alternative is mass famine. I do not believe
this is a major reason the relief does not flow in the first
place. The coffers are very insufficiently filled to bring in
that much aid regardless of what the leaders say.
>
> Mugabe is currently halting the arrival of relief crops because they
> cannot be proven not to be genetically enhanced! He is actually using
> all the tricks of the West for his own ends. If somebody offered nano
> seeds to grow food, shelter and purify water he would likely quote
> Bill Joy and Fukuyama back.
>
On relief crops he has a legitimate question. On immediate food
aid (if needed) he does not.
> I have always thought there is a need for a "nasty" aid organisation
> that gives subversive, useful things directly to people, bypassing
> whatever government they have. The microloan movement is a good first
> approximation, but I would like to see something that would actually
> airdrop satphones or nano seeds over hostile governments. But whatever
> you give the people, the rulers will also have.
>
Yes, I totally agree with this "nasty" (NOT) approach. If the
people have enough they will shrug off these so-called rulers.
> Even if you fix exponentially growing wealth, not getting rid of the
> thugs will leave them to threaten and coerce people amid the wealth.
So, get rid of them. Empower the people. But be careful in who
you call a "thug". The label might be applied uncomfortably
close to home.
> Institutional shifts does indeed take time. But it can be
> helped by certain tech (communications) and by clearly promoting
> certain memes (like freedom of the press; another interesting service
> that ought to be set up: something like a free web for dissident
> groups, linked to voice of america-like radio broadcasting stations on
> international waters).
>
Yes. We should have a "nasty" movement to bring freedom of the
press back to the oppressed masses in America! Sorry, couldn't
resist. :-)
> The idea that certain cultures are incapable of democracy and peace is
> very likely totally wrong. But it is hard and takes time to get out of
> bad institutions and vicious cycles.
>
All this is all well and good, but before you can work on the
culture it first needs to stabilize to something well above the
starvation and massive disease level.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:01 MST