From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Aug 17 2002 - 18:11:12 MDT
Samantha writes
> What some country would have done is again not necessarily
> useful for determining what we, hopefully as
> Extropians/Transhumanists/Singularitarians and generally
> intelligent thoughtful people, would advise doing.
Yes. I want to apologize for appearing to slip back and
forth across the is/ought barrier while responding to
Damien and Anders. I really wasn't. You're right, we
are here focusing on what we (or you or I) would *advise*.
Now, as I was saying to Damien, suppose that some friend
of yours displays true anger and does something a tiny
bit rash. Of course afterwards you and he can agree that
this was not the optimal course of action. But "not optimal"
for *that specific event*! His overall strategy (inspired
by genes) is exceedingly rational: you know the story.
(See also Charles Hixson's post sent at 1:07 pm which
contained the line "Game theory sort of indicates that the
proper answer is to be capable of extreme berserk behavior.")
Successful nations resemble people in this way. Open
any historical atlas and scan through the various
regimes, duchies, empires, and states. They survived
as viable entities only so long as they were able to
act in their own behalf. To take one example, the Germans
had to be *afraid* of what the English and French would do,
and in both world wars, the English FAILED MISERABLY to
emphasize what they would and wouldn't do. The Kaiser
actually thought that the British were not going to
intervene, and Hitler had been trained by Chamberlain
to think that the nation of shopkeepers had no backbone.
Mitch's comments about non-Western people's perceptions
are pretty accurate, I think. If it's true that the Al
Qaeda types were surprised by the intensity of the US's
reaction, then that's good.
> > Okay. I'll do the best with [Anders'] hypothesis that I can:
> > A global ideological network of some unspecified kind starts
> > nuking cities. Hmm. Sorry, but that's a bit too vague. We
> > probably ought to have a little more to go on here.
>
> It is not vague at all as I see it. We are more likely to face
> the most complex problems of detection, avoidance of serious
> destruction, formulating policies exactly when it comes to these
> extra-national organizations and small non-state group threats.
> Most of your examples above are concerning nations rather than
> concerning a non-national group out to cause mass-destruction.
Yes, but surely there would be *some* knowledge. If it's
Ted Kaczynski, that's one bit, if it's Earth First, then
that's another, and so on. Some particulars, even about
their ideology or probably dispersion would surely be
available, and it would be important to base any advice
on it.
> What suspects? How would massive arrest and internment
> satisfying your goals and be balanced against your steady-state
> and desired future state goals? Arresting 3 percent of the
> population and suspending their rights because you don't know
> what else to do seems pretty weak and likely to lead to very
> nasty consequences.
Yes, sorry, I was projecting yet another assumption onto
Anders' scenario. I was supposing that (like the realistic
case) they belonged almost exclusively to one region, or
ethnic class, but your claim so far is that such an assumption
isn't necessary.
> It certainly has the direct implication that you can turn
> any "democracy" into its opposite immediately with one act
> of mass-destruction. This is quite unacceptable.
And unrealistic too. Republican democracies stable over a
half dozen generations can declare martial law, suspend
habeas corpus, intern vast numbers of citizens, and still---
when the emergency is over---return to their normal states.
Or at least they have so far. Yes, we do need to be wary,
but at the same time getting one of your cities destroyed
or your whole pacific fleet sunk can IMO be a just cause
for extreme measures.
> If you have a full transparent society there is absolutely no
> need of martial law or of mass-internment. Both of those are
> superseded when you know exactly who did or is doing what when.
> I thought of such transparency as a possibility. However, it
> could only work in the context of my goals and ideal IF the
> lawmakers and enforcers are extremely rational and liberal.
> Otherwise it leads all to easily to unlimited State power and
> the end of individual freedom. The end of individual freedom,
> please note, includes the end of the ability to choose one's own
> course outside the accepted norms. This includes the end of the
> ability to innovate and invent a new and quite different future
> such as presumably part of the goal of all of us. So this also
> is unacceptable.
Yes. Here, though, we are back to the "advising" quandary.
To be graphic, suppose that tomorrow New York, Washington D.C.,
and Chicago all go up in thermonuclear blasts. You better
believe that martial law will be declared. You better believe
that all suspects, or those suspected of links to the suspects
will be arrested. A nation must and will go into shock just as
the body will at loss of a limb.
Well, would I advise the military to immediately implement the
transparent society? Yes, it would be risky. For one thing,
they'd certainly and rightly exempt their own planning and
counter-attack strategy sessions. But remember: if Nixon
as commander in chief had ordered troops to simply arrest
certain senators, the orders would not have been obeyed. So
there would be a *chance* that nearly total Transparency
could be implemented, and that it would work out well.
If three such cities went up, it would be ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY to do everything possible to prevent a fourth.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:12 MST