From: Anders Sandberg (asa@nada.kth.se)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 06:18:58 MDT
On Wed, Jun 26, 2002 at 12:25:18AM -0700, Samantha Atkins wrote:
> Anders Sandberg wrote:
> >On Sun, Jun 23, 2002 at 10:06:11PM -0700, Robert J. Bradbury wrote:
>
> >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.
Well, there have been several cases where rice brought the weapons
needed to opress the people (and even more where aid money did it).
Sending in the troops would do it, but would of course require a
*sizeable* investment of another nation's diplomatic capital, and quite
likely leave it open for both internal criticism and attacks from the
local thugs. This is of course why it is so seldom done, especially in
places where the government is the thugs. Overall, this is just a
short-term solution in any case.
> >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?
Ask Robert Mugabe and the others. The most common (honest) answer would
likely be that starvation is a great way of getting rid of groups you
don't like or support the oppositon - give the food to your people and
let the others starve, and you will be able to rule on.
> 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.
Who sits in the UN? Represenatives of governments - and quite a few
truly nasty ones like North Korea, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Iraq etc. The UN
has a very strong comittment to the idea of soverign governments and has
over its history seldom supported motions that circumvent local leaders.
This is quite natural for an organisation that is so heavily based on
the assumption that governments are the best represenatives of people,
but it does not make it likely that it would support any "help
regardless of what you say" activities even if it had the resources.
> >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.
By their acts ye shall know them.
> >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. :-)
Actually, it might be a good idea even if we leave out the popular idea
here in Europe that you americans are poor, brainwashed servants to your
terrorist corporate masters :-) If 911 has shown anything, it is that we
need better protection for the open society from panic-stricken
governments in times of crisis. Hence it might be a good idea to set up
freedom-promoting systems aimed in *all* directions, not just at the
places where open societies currently do not exist but at places where
they exist but can be threatened. And that includes both the US and
Sweden.
> >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.
This seems to be view of China - freedom of speech, democracy and all
that are something that can be dealt with after everybody has got a good
standard of living. Maybe not as much as a crisis zone as Zimbabwe, but
I think the one step at a time approach is not the right thing to do
since it is essentially just saying "tomorrow, maybe" and postponing
reforms indefinitely. Culture and institutions can be shaped *while*
trying to stabilize the situation - often they are the stuff that helps
stabilize a crisis region in the first place. Education, pest control
programs and setting up food distribution networks go hand in hand.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension! asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~asa/ GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:03 MST