From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Fri Sep 27 2002 - 23:50:03 MDT
Eliezer writes
> Saddam Hussein is a threat to the world chiefly because of how free and
> open societies respond to him as an irritant. Ashcroft is a direct threat
> to the Singularity; Saddam Hussein is an indirect threat who wouldn't be a
> threat at all without the likes of Ashcroft.
What would you guess the probability to be that
Saddam Hussein has or will soon have an atomic
bomb, and that such weapons as are at his
disposal could end up being used against
American cities? (Of course, I realize that
you are an amateur as are all the rest of us
on this list.)
> Let's take 9/11 as an example. Which did more damage,
> the loss of the World Trade Center or the massive social
> reaction to the loss of the World Trade Center?
The former did more damage to people, the latter did
more damange to the United States.
> It isn't true that we have nothing to fear but fear itself,
> but certainly fear is doing a lot more damage than anything else.
Debating policy is one thing, debating how people
should feel is another. I totally agree with you
that people should not feel so *personally*
threatened. The odds of being victimized by an
airplane hijacking or dying in the first one or
two attacks on the U.S. from WMD is not large.
I think that people are feeling that their nation
is attacked, and it's those people who support the
administration and an effort to get Saddam Hussein
first.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:19 MST