On Thu, 20 Dec 2001, Neil Blanch wrote:
> Regardless
> of a country's GDP, major life enhancing projects like improving electrical
> or telco infrastructure & even real basics like clean water cost big bucks,
> and it is countries with low GDP's (like Afghanistan) that need the most
> help and the most money to make real improvements in the lives of their
> citizens.
Huh? I *hate* to tell you this but electricity and telephones are the
last things people in the 3rd world need to improve their lives. Equality
between women and men, access to credit, supportive educational systems
and rule of law (not dictators or warlords) is what 3rd world contries
need. (I base this on 20 years of reading the literature supplied by
The Hunger Project (www.thp.org) who have worked in the trenches of 3rd
world countries trying to provide people with the necessities of life.)
I'd have to side with Lee -- a free press, or perhaps free and open
access television (groups of people can watch satellite TV powered by
solar cells, pedal generators, etc.) is perhaps the best way to
get the things they *really* need (education, knowledge of funding
sources, debate about political corruption, etc.).
> in fact in many respects one can see
> the seeds of the economic, humanitarian, religious & military situation in
> Afghanistan in the foreign policy of the US, Pakistan & the USSR,
The current situation in Afghanistan follows directly from the cold war.
Russia wanting to expand its sphere of influence and the U.S. trying to
prevent that. Whether the current Afghan situation is "good" depends
on how you balance it against the progress of democracy in Eastern Europe
and Russia over the last decade. Could we have done a better job?
Most probably. But as they say hindsight is 20-20.
> The propping up of mad dictators & inhumane juntas MUST stop.
So should we bomb Uzbekistan and Tajikistan into rubble as well while
we are at it? Or would you prefer that we not have bases from which
military rescue operations can be conducted while the U.S. tries to
cleanup the mess in Afghanistan? I'll note that it is *highly*
unlikely the Uzbekistan-Afghanistan Friendship Bridge would now be
open (supplying food to people facing starvation) had the U.S.
taken a "hands off" policy with regard to Afghanistan or not
gotten its hands "dirty" by dealing with Uzbekistan politicians.
> The exploitation of foreign workers and ecologies for the profit
> of a few rich shareholders MUST stop.
I'll simply note that the reason that we lost interest in Afghanistan
after the Soviets left is precisely because there are no American
interests there (in contrast to say Saudi Arabia). I think if you
look at the economies of Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, etc. it seems
difficult to make the case that "exploiting" foreign workers has
caused them to remain mired in poverty.
I agree with much of remainder of what you said but would like to
close with a couple of thoughts.
When Russia was mired in its economic pit in the mid-'90's and
many people were calling on the U.S. to "help" Russia, President
Clinton made a statement to the effect of, "The United States cannot
help Russia -- only Russia can help Russia". The same is true of
*all* countries. The U.S. cannot "magically" make them work.
Historically we have had the "guns vs. butter" economic tradeoffs.
Now its more like "defense vs. domestic & international welfare vs.
R&D (NSF, NIH, the Advanced Technologies Program, etc.). I tried
to make a utilitarian argument about the value of future lives
saved vs. present day lives lost once previously on the list and
got crucified for it. It failed because it required the use of
active force and because of the uncertainty of how to value
past and future lives. But one can eliminate the "active force"
part of the equation and the debate becomes "domestic defense"
(e.g. more emergency response teams) vs. domestic & international
welfare (health care, education, Peace Corps, etc.) & R&D
(anthrax anti-toxins, stem cells, etc.)
I think there will be a point where spending every penny one has
on R&D will maximize the number of individuals that survive
through the singularity. I also think there will be a different
point in time when you may be able to "mortgage the future"
(as Regan did) under the "prevailing" market conditions -- and allocate
large amounts of money to all 3 of the above tradeoffs (perhaps
salvaging even more people). This may be feasible because the
singularity will bail you out just as the productivity improvements
of the '90's (and perhaps social security) bailed out Regan's gambit.
However it is going to require a much clearer crystal ball than
mine to predict precisely *when* those points in time will be.
We might already be past them. But I don't have that much
hindsight yet.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 11 2002 - 17:44:28 MDT