How Much Priority for Democracy and Human Rights?
It’s easy to be for democracy and human rights. It’s harder to get specific on how much of a priority they should be in particular cases. Libya and Iran are cases in point.
In both cases I’ve taken the view on AAbroad and other writings that the security issues are a higher priority, and that we neither should pursue the regime change pushed by neocons nor the linkage favored by many human rights advocates. Then it got less abstract and more personal with the arrest and possible torture of Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo, an Iranian scholar and civil society activist (reported in today’s newspapers but known from e-mail listservs for awhile). I don’t know Ramin that well, but he left a very strong impression. And I’ve met his wife, and met their young child. If the Iranian government were to offer tomorrow a WMD disarmament deal, yet keep Ramin in prison, should we take it?
I still would. I say that honestly but hardly easily. Some of the unease is partially assuaged with the tactical argument that greater and overt pressure is highly likely to backfire. That isn’t true with all governments in all situations, but is in the current U.S.-Iranian context. So if we care about Ramin and others like him, we have to think about results not just intentions. Work with Canada (he has Canadian citizenship) and others, keep a low U.S. profile, if successful avoid American trumpeting.
Similar debates have been going on over Libya. There is of course the regime change not policy change position of the neocons; Qaddafi was supposed to be one of those “taking a number” after Iraq. There also is the position of some human rights activists and others that the Libya deal was a sell-out and hypocritical given Qaddafi’s continued repressiveness. These additional linkages, though, likely would have overloaded the circuits and undermined any deal at all. Moreover, the deal does not preclude other forms of pressure as we’ve seen in the case of the Bulgarian nurses scapegoated for an AIDS outbreak in Libyan hospitals. This case has dragged on way too long, and there have been reports that the nurses have been tortured. But the annulling of their death sentence last December by the Libyan Supreme Court and their new trial beginning next month were to a great extent the consequence of human rights pressures from NGOs, the United States and Western Europe. The case is still pending; its outcome will be telling.
Still we’re left with the relative priority question. Tactics aside, how much priority for human rights and democracy compared to security and other interests when choices have to be made in cases like Libya and Iran? The Bulgarian nurses case doesn’t even get at cases involving repression of Libyans. Ramin may not get out of jail; Iran may not change politically for many years. And even if one doesn’t want to embrace Bush’s 2005 Inaugural and other invocations of freeing the world from tyranny, what about “democratic peace” theory and Clinton administration advocacy of democracy (Clinton’s 1994 State of the Union: “Democracies do not attack each other . . . ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere”)?
I supported the deal with Libya and would support a WMD disarmament deal with Iran. The security interests in these cases are compelling. We should continue to find ways to promote democracy and human rights, but we should not condition a WMD deal on Iranian internal political change.
Is that hard-hearted? Is it hypocritical? Fair questions. And these are hardly the only cases in which these issues arise and such questions need to be asked by each of us to ourselves, and to each other.
Here's one simple answer.
If you believe in democracy and civil rights, STAY THE HELL OUT OF COUNTRIES WITHOUT THEM.
That would seem to be a simple plan for most people not born in those countries. If you don't want to be subject to the whims of states with no civil rights records, stay the hell out of them.
That ALONE - if followed by everyone - would put pressure on those states because nobody in the civilized world - including corporations - would deal with them except by using indigenous representatives. How would the Arabs have developed the oil fields without Western technicians? They could have developed their own - fine, but that would eliminate any threat to Westerners.
If you go there, you are supporting those states. If you're doing so for corporate motives, each employee of that corporation has to realize that they have no recourse if they are detained by such a state. If you make that decision to go, it's on you.
If you are going there for "activist" reason, what do you expect? You think the government is going to welcome you and NOT screw you over? If so, why is it now MY responsibility to get you out of the jam you walked into with full conscious responsibility?
For those born in those countries, the issue is: how can I get out of here? In some cases, that may not be possible.
I'd say we should perhaps have some sympathy for those people and perhaps offer what assistance we can, but that is insufficient to be talking about regime change or even pressure on those regimes on a state level.
Let's get back to human reality - people get the government they want. And everybody who suffers under that government needs to realize that they're on their own. Either get the power to get out or get the power to change the government.
There are no third solutions.
And don't expect it to be easy, if the bulk of your population is too weak or too irrational to support your ideas. At what point should you decide that it would be better to leave and live somewhere else more conducive to your desired society than to waste your live trying to change the one you were born in?
In other words, stop letting culture, environment, or your parents decide the way you want to live.
And the other bottom line: being "for" democracy and freedom doesn't necessarily mean trying to "change the world". And if it does, there are more effective ways than wandering around helpless in dangerous states or starting wars everywhere on the planet.
By the way, there ARE NO "WMD" in Iran to be "disarmed", Bruce, as far as anyone knows. Do try to keep that in mind when discussing Iran.
May 21, 2006 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Let's get back to human reality - people get the government they want. And everybody who suffers under that government needs to realize that they're on their own. Either get the power to get out or get the power to change the government."
That's a very simplistic view of the world, isn't it? If you don't like your government, then get power! It's that easy! So by extending your logic, everyone who died in the Holocaust or any other historical mass murder deserved to die, either because the government powers that exterminated them represented governments that they "wanted," because they simply failed to get power, or because they didn't leave. Wow.
May 21, 2006 9:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
And by your view, what was the alternative? World War II, right? Which killed how many people? 200 million?
What part of historical reality can't you comprehend?
Not to mention that I never said anything about "easy", or who "deserved" to die - in fact, I said the opposite, but you were obviously in too much of a hurry to run your mouth to read my post.
If you are intending to express the view that in any government, there are people who support it and people who oppose it, and the people who oppose it are usually in the minority (which happens to be MY point), you might have stated it as such.
There's nothing simplistic about this. It's reality.
The point of Bruce's post is to advance the notion that it's not a good idea to make freeing everybody in the world and producing an Eden on Earth any particular nation's first priority given the world as it is. His point is to start where you can with what is most immediately important. You got a problem with that?
Where I believe Bruce goes slightly wrong is in continuing to believe that just because some people suffer under their governments that somebody else has to take responsibility for that and prevent that from happening.
It is my opinion that the people who are suffering have the responsibility to deal with that as best they may. I see no reason NOT to support them as long as that support 1) doesn't make them worse off, and 2) doesn't make the supporter worse off, and 3) is possible. But extending that to the notion that everybody is responsible for everybody else's condition in the world is just a meaningless concept, first, because it's not possible, and second, because it's an attempt to elevate oneself OVER everybody else in the world - a common syndrome among pundits.
As a radical Transhumanist, my motivations are totally and completely selfish. I am not interested in anybody else's problems except to determine what the correct situation actually is and what would be the correct and effective resolution were such a resolution possible. I don't care how many chimpanzees get killed in their wars as long as a) I don't get killed, b) nobody I care about gets killed, and c) technology marches on.
I don't care if Saddam Hussein was a "bad guy". There are a lot of "bad guys" in the world. They're a dime a dozen. They run damn near every state on the planet. The only question is: do they shoot their citizens personally, like Saddam did, or do they murder their citizens by sending them to wars for the benefit of the oil companies, like Bush does? I don't see the distinction - other than that Saddam has killed fewer people than the US has over the decades. The same applies to the Iranians.
In every country in the world, including the US, there are literally thousands, scores of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of people being mistreated in some way or another by their government. How many are being mistreated in any given country is merely a function of circumstances. There are two million US prisoners being mistreated in this country, for example - one out of every 136 US citizens, according to a report today - if you take the US prison system as a form of mistreatment - which it is in comparison with more rational ways of dealing with crime.
If you want to stop all that, learn to stop thinking like a chimpanzee and find a way to make everyone else stop thinking like a chimpanzee. As a Transhumanist, I know there is only one way to do that - technology.
Your post doesn't qualify.
May 21, 2006 10:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
With all due respect, what is the point of this article except to once again stress the scary Iran nuke possibility?
Because your questions are nonsense.
Should Iran even offer us a deal considering we have thousands, half of which are probably non combatants, prisoners in Gitmo?
Should the US have China as a favored trade partner considering their human rights record?
Should America even recongized Israel much less support it, considering it's the decades long illegal occupation of Palestine?
Have you taken leave of your senses to even write about conditioning anything America does on human rights considering our beautiful example of torture in Iraq?
As far as Iran and their nuclear progam, you can be assured that if I were Iran I would want nukes to protect me from Israel and the US.
Plezzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....no more!!...the sane Americans out here have o.d.'ed on all this hypocritical talky-talky gobbly gook.
May 21, 2006 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think I understand where Bruce is coming from, possibly.
He's essentially bringing up the notion that the rightwing does, that because Saddam was a "bad guy" it doesn't matter that there were no WMDs in Iraq, and that Iraq was no threat to anybody. Except he's saying that's not a valid notion.
He's treating it more generally, however. At what point does the general "liberal" interest in "democracy" and "civil rights" trump common sense in dealing with states that don't adhere to the "liberal" vision?
He's coming down somewhat on the side of dealing with foreign policy realistically rather than emotionally or "idealistically", in some sense.
It's not a notion "liberals" are comfortable with.
Of course, YOUR take is right, too. The US state itself is in no position to be taking the "moral high ground" on anything.
But I think Bruce was talking about the "liberal" position, not necessarily the US state position.
I could be wrong, however, since as usual, it was all garbed in "pundit-speak" - where nothing is what it seems and no position is ever less than amorphous.
May 21, 2006 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I get your point but think his questions are pointless, since very few things we do abroad are based on liberal or democratic values or even common sense to begin with...
If he just wants to theorize out loud...well fine.
So what is the answer to this navel gazing question?..well sure, we will let you imprison and torture people as long as you don't have nukes?...or no, quit imprisoning and torturing people and we will let you have nukes?...or no you can't imprison or torture and you can't have nukes either so we are gonna bomb and kill a few hundred thousand of you to stop you?
It is an idiot question, and the liberal vr realist vr human rights vr nukes vr security is just fodder for people who want to write and yada,yada about it because if we ever got to the bottom line the jig would be up....and the people who are actually producing this drama are doing it for reasons of none of the above.
Meanwhile we can all stay busy talking about which came first, the chicken or the egg...or whether the man who went into the river to rescue a horse did it from inate virtue or learned virtue or because he needed a horse.
May 22, 2006 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's true that nothing the US does is correct to begin with.
You're correct that the real problem with Bruce's position is that he skirts around the real issues in his pundit-speak in order to avoid offending the usual "liberal" position.
I just learned something I never knew about the United States Constitution - that NONE of it applied to the states until the 14th Amendment was passed, and THEN it STILL didn't apply to the states except bit by bit as the Supreme Court deemed it did.
In other words, this country IN REALITY HAS NO "rights" that can't be abrogated by any state government - unless that right was also recognized by the first (or subsequently amended) state constitutions - which, fortunately in many cases they have been, as many of the state constitutions embodied much of the Federal Bill of Rights when they were formed.
Doesn't surprise me any more that the so-called "Constitution" has been ignored more than recognized in US history.
Well, no big deal to me, since I don't believe in the metaphysical concept of "rights" anyway. The world turns on power. You either have power or you don't have "rights". It's that simple.
So to babble on about "human rights" in this world is truly a waste of time. I prefer to talk in terms of what works and does not work in a context of societies of sentient entities.
Now if I could just find some "sentient entities"...
May 22, 2006 7:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
So basically, you avoided the substance of my post, which focused on your arguments concerning the legitimacy of government actions.
Though the non-sensical views that you believe are so original are in fact merely a sort of rehashed ethical egoism, a philosophical system which has been thoroughly debunked and dispatched with, I'd like to point out that in your post you basically said that if a minority is suppressed by a government that was elected by a majority, then that's reality, and we should accept that while providing some sort of BS emotional support to the suffering, and we shouldn't interfere in their affairs. That's like saying if someone is drowning and we have the capacity to save them, we should give them emotional support but we shouldn't intervene because we COULD make things worse. I won't hit your arguments point by point because I think arguing with you is, for the most part, a waste of time (and I'm sure you will have a scathing personal attack to come right back at me...let's stick to the substance of the comments...you were the first one to make a personal attack in this thread of comments).
That being said, some additional points. Number one, in your comments you painted World War II as the alternative to simply letting the Holocaust run its course. Let's get one thing straight: there was no choice between World War II and letting genocide occur. World War II would have happened anyway. That's reality.
My second point is that your "Transhumanist," meaning ethical egoist, notion that "my motivations are totally and completely selfish. I am not interested in anybody else's problems except to determine what the correct situation actually is and what would be the correct and effective resolution were such a resolution possible" seems to completely disregard the social relations that characterize human life, and the simple idea that one person's actions may affect another seems completely lost on you.
My third point: what is the Transhumanist definition of justice? I'd like to hear it.
My fourth point: Of course I don't think governments are obligated to meddle in each other's affairs due to commitments to human rights or democracy. But what I don't understand is your consistent view that, even if a government has absolute military superiority over another government which is committing mass murder, the former should not stop the mass murder but should instead tacitly support the oppressed population and deal with the murderous government through "indigenous representatives." I think it should be obvious to most human beings with half a brain that such an opinion is horrifically contemptuous of human life and dignity.
May 22, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, yes, human rights are good things. I like them; in an ideal world, everybody would have them and governments would promote them. But as this post pointed out, we don't live in an ideal world.
A couple of thoughts. First, there's a big difference between "making the world safe for democracy" and "spreading democracy." On this, I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, in Transhuman's camp -- the U.S. cannot make another country democratic. Besides, if The People do get to choose their government, who is to say that they might not want a theocracy?
Second, a counterfactual. If Nazi Germany had not invaded Poland, would the world community have been justified in intervening to prevent the Holocaust?
PSA: There is now a Users' Help Forum.May 22, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
The amount of irrelevancy and disconnectedness from anything I said is remarkable in your posts.
Youu really need to learn to read a post before responding to it. But obviously that is not your agenda.
"rehashed ethical egoism, a philosophical system which has been thoroughly debunked and dispatched with"
Irrelevant to anything I said, not to mention that the proponents of ANY philosophical system would probably object to being dismissed so cavalierly in the absence of any demonstration to that effect.
Not to mention that I suspect most conventional Transhumanists, especially those of the Extropian variety, would object to being dismissed as "ethical egoists" - even though you are correct that many of them have come from Libertarian backgrounds of one sort or another. Most of them, however, view themselves as "extended Humanists" (I don't, recognizing deeper issues in the concepts of Transhumanism.)
In any event, none of that is relevant to my post.
"That's like saying if someone is drowning and we have the capacity to save them, we should give them emotional support but we shouldn't intervene because we COULD make things worse."
Again, irrelevant to and a complete misreading of everything I said. Not to mention that comparing an individual accident and the actions of states is meaningless.
"Let's get one thing straight: there was no choice between World War II and letting genocide occur. World War II would have happened anyway."
Again, irrelevant. My point was that YOUR only IDENTIFIED alternative to the Holocaust WAS WWII.
My understanding of the Jewish response to the encroachments of Nazism was that many of them (those who had the wherewithal and imagination, anyway) up and left early on and were spared the horrors of the camps. This is in line with my post. Those who were not able to leave - or who didn't believe what could happen - were the ones who ended up in the camps.
Another important point is that I've heard that the US did not even believe (possibly for its own reasons) the stories of Jewish oppression or the camps initially and did not publicize the issue until much later, which impacted the Nazis ability to continue on that course. Had the world come down on Germany diplomatically about the issue much earlier, perhaps the full extent of the Holocaust could have been prevented or ameliorated.
While this would seem to be contradictory to my position, the fact of the matter is that my position is not about whether any given state should have an opinion about another state's policies, or modify its policies toward that other state based on its opinion, but whether unilaterally declaring war on that state is a valid response to that states actions.
"seems to completely disregard the social relations that characterize human life, and the simple idea that one person's actions may affect another seems completely lost on you."
In fact, it doesn't - proving again that your only function here seems to be to take somebody's statements, impose your own interpretation, then use that to make ad hominem attacks.
What part of "correct and effective resolution of a problem" don't you comprehend? Transhumanism, even of my variety, acknowledges social relations and in fact tries to find correct and effective means of implementing them, even while focusing on the need to transcend human nature which is the source of most of the failures of social relations. Transhumanists have a "Final Solution" to all human problems - transcending human nature.
"even if a government has absolute military superiority over another government which is committing mass murder, the former should not stop the mass murder but should instead tacitly support the oppressed population and deal with the murderous government through "indigenous representatives.""
I of course didn't say any of that - yet again. That is your interpretation of what I did say. What I actually said was the if nobody supported a murderous government AT ALL, they would be less able to be murderous. Also, that it is possible to support the people of a murderous state without necessarily going to war with that state.
There is also the question of what constitutes "mass murder" sufficient to justify, say, UN intervention. Considering the situations in the world today, I'd say quite a few countries, including the US, have difficulty deciding when to intervene to prevent "mass murder."
In fact, it would seem that the presence of oil is the deciding factor.
The US let Pol Pot kill millions without intervening - because there was no oil and because the US already had one little run-in with "intervention" - it was called Vietnam.
You say:
"Of course I don't think governments are obligated to meddle in each other's affairs due to commitments to human rights or democracy."
Then proceed to argue the opposite throughout your post.
If I may indulge in your sort of crass "interpretation" of someone else's remarks, you seem to be the sort that believes the US should intervene militarily at all times everywhere in the world where somebody is doing something "bad" to someone else according to your particular prejudices.
I and Bruce are simply saying that that is not a reasonable - or even feasible - policy. I just carry it further than Bruce does.
May 22, 2006 9:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like you to try to refrain from engaging in personal attacks on me when making comments in the future. I first tried to engage in a respectful conversation with you about your ideas, choosing to aggressively press you on your comments and not to attack you or your intelligence. Since you seem incapable of making comments without resorting to a disrespectful and childish tone, and since you have consistently argued that I plagiarize my opinions, I refuse to engage in further dialogue with you, since, as I have said before, I believe it to be a waste of time.
And by the way, YOU STILL NEED TO TELL ME WHAT JUSTICE IS.
May 22, 2006 9:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
As to your counterfactual, my guess is that the world would have put considerable pressure on Nazi Germany - if and to the extent that the nature of the Holocaust became apparent to the world.
However, I suspect the world would not have committed military resources to the task absent a military threat from the Nazis.
On the other hand, given the self-interest of states and the amount of anti-Semitism in the world at that time, perhaps the world wouldn't have done anything about the Holocaust. I would have expected the Zionist influence in Britain to have resulted in some action, but whether any of it would have been effective is speculative. Perhaps the issue of Palestine would have raised five or ten years earlier.
The problem is no different in other times and places: the Armenian massacre, the Cambodian massacre, etc.
The argument boils down to two options: cherry-pick your interventions based on national self-interest (read: oil), or intervene everywhere all the time.
The latter is not possible, the former is hypocritical.
This is what one ends up with when you deal with states.
The obvious answer is: get rid of states, then you don't have to worry about "murderous states". Most "genocides" not carried out by states are less efficient and less common when carried out by tribal groups because they don't have the social control and wealth and armaments of a modern state.
War is only possible between states. So is genocide in most instances.
The final bottom line however is that until humans stop thinking like chimpanzees, they're going to kill each other like chimpanzees. Read up on how chimpanzees really behave with regard to violence, such as how when a new alpha chimp takes over a troop, he kills all the young of the previous alpha male. Then remember that humans are 98.5% genetically identical to bonobo chimps.
UPDATE: Actually that's not entirely correct. It seems that bonobos are less violent than chimps - which would indicate that we're more like chimps than bonobos.
I really should read this book I've just discovered on Amazon:
Demonic Males : Apes and the Origins of Human Violence
The synopsis is:
"If you harbor a sneaking suspicion that men are a herd of ignoble savages, then this book is for you. Authors Wrangham and Peterson will confirm your instincts. It turns out that hyperviolent social behavior is deeply rooted in male human genes and common among our closest male primate relatives. Rapes, beatings and killings are as much a part of life among the great apes as they are among us. The authors try to conclude on some upbeat notes that ring hollow, but their science reveals much about the dark side of human nature. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition.
From Publishers Weekly
Contradicting the common belief that chimpanzees in the wild are gentle creatures, Harvard anthropologist Wrangham and science writer Peterson have witnessed, since 1971, male African chimpanzees carry out rape, border raids, brutal beatings and warfare among rival territorial gangs. In a startling, beautifully written, riveting, provocative inquiry, they suggest that chimpanzee-like violence preceded and paved the way for human warfare?which would make modern humans the dazed survivors of a continuous, five-million-year habit of lethal aggression. They buttress their thesis with an examination of the ubiquitous rape among orangutans, gorilla infanticide and male-initiated violence and hyenas' territorial feuds, drawing parallels to the lethal raiding among the Yanomamo people of Brazil's Amazon forests and other so-called primitive tribes, as well as to modern "civilized" mass slaughter. In their analysis, patriotism ("stripped to its essence... male defense of the community") breeds aggression, yet, from an evolutionary standpoint, they reject the presumed inevitability of male violence and male dominance over women."
Here's another interesting quote from a review of another book on the subject, "Our Inner Ape":
"Frans de Waal, a prominent primatologist, compares our social behavior with that of two species of apes: chimpanzees and bonobos (which look like smaller, more upright chimps). Despite their physical similarities, the two species behave very differently. Bonobos live in a relatively peaceful matriarchy; when conflicts do arise, instead of fighting they often use sexual activity to resolve them, defusing the aggression with friendly physical contact. Like hippies, they make love, not war. Chimp society, however, is a male-dominated hierarchy based on power. Unlike the gentle bonobos, who seldom kill, chimps will hunt for meat and even kill members of rival groups.
In this fascinating book, de Waal suggests that the two species represent sides of our own nature. We have "not one but two inner apes," he writes, speculating that humans may act like a hybrid of bonobos and chimps...
Bonobos don't exactly distinguish between sex and friendly touching. Since their behavior is so often X-rated, you will have to read the book to learn the details. There you'll also find details of chimpanzee violence. Infanticide, de Waal tells us, is a leading cause of death among chimps, both in zoos and in the wild. One reason bonobos engage in so much sex is to prevent rival males from killing their babies. If everybody has sex with everybody else, there's no saying who's the daddy.
Like humans, chimps can be ruthless toward individuals who are not part of their troop. De Waal explains that large-brained animals capable of using empathy to do kind things for others are also capable of great cruelty, because they can imagine what their victims will feel. One of the most shocking incidents he describes occurred at Gombe National Park in Tanzania, where a group of chimps lived peacefully for years. As youngsters they played and groomed one another, but the group gradually drifted apart and formed two new groups. Chimps that had known one another for years were now in conflict. "Shocked researchers watched as former friends now drank each other's blood. Not even the oldest community members were left alone. An extremely frail-looking male, Goliath, was pummeled for 20 minutes and dragged about." De Waal compares this horrible chimp behavior to genocide in Rwanda and Bosnia. With chimps, as with humans, fighting within one's own group is restrained compared with attacks on outsiders.
De Waal does not discuss the possible genetic implications of many of his observations. Animals who have high-fear genetics are less inclined to be aggressive because they are afraid to fight, and stressful, scary situations can affect them more dramatically. When bombs fell on Munich during World War II, de Waal tells us, all the bonobos in the zoo died of heart failure, but all the chimps survived. Unfortunately, he does not discuss how these differences in fearfulness might affect social behavior. Fear and other traits, like aggression and sociability, have a strong genetic component."
In other words, unless we transcend that genetic component either by careful and consistent training of everyone in rational thinking - or technology - humans will continue to kill each other in great bleeding bunches.
May 22, 2006 9:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Also, I never identified WWII as the alternative to the Holocaust. And if you are going to say something is irrelevant or a misreading, you must explain why. Simply dismissing something as irrelevant is not going to earn you anyone's respect, especially considering that your lengthy posts, in my opinion, lack precision and are difficult to follow.
May 22, 2006 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I accused you of "plagiarism"?
Amazing. I don't remember typing that word anytime recently.
And categorizing your insulting tone with "aggressively pressing me" is disingenuous at best.
Try this, then: buzz off, troll.
That make you happy?
Why these morons think I'm going to just sit here and be pummeled on for their amusement without verbally kicking them in the nuts is beyond me...
They have obviously mistaken me for some sort of "liberal pundit"...
May 22, 2006 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Last post, I swear. The reason I am asking you about justice is because I think it is crucial to understanding one's point of view on democracy and human rights. I also meant to post this a while ago but I got caught up, so sorry about that.
May 22, 2006 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
I must read that book......"Fear and other traits, like aggression and sociability, have a strong genetic component."....anyone who has bred horses or dogs or any animal knows that behavioral traits are passed on thru genetics just as are physical traits.
Howver I would also use this to question your idea of a "stateless" universe being better.
The trite saying "Human nature never changes" is trite because it is true.
Without some structure such as states you would be right back to the stone age days of roaming hordes of war lords.
Except in this day and time the warring hordes ravaging the land and populations would be the multinational powerhouse CEO's or monied international elites...huuummm....come to think of it, this is sounding errily familiar, maybe I got it from watching current trends.
May 22, 2006 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are right Trans..the world does turn on power....
Once in a while those in power have the right genes or learning experience and do promote "rights' for everyone.
Too often not.
Now if we could find a way to tweak genetics...so that the "good genes" could overcome their inbred aversion to agression or force and behave like "bad' genes in certain circumstances just long enough to rid us of the "baddies".....similar to a family doberman who is completely docile until it see a threat to the family.
May 22, 2006 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ta-da!
You have now discerned some minimal part of the concept of the future of human society as we Transhumans see it.
Only it's going to be a lot more than "tweaking" (although it may start out as that due to technological necessity)... The only problem is we have to find a way to insure that the tweaking isn't done by the government on US...
People really ought to watch the "X-Men" movies. While they're mostly a comment on humanity's racial attitudes (since the comics originated back in the Sixties), there's a lot you can discern there from the fiction about what could happen if a certain group of people with enhanced capabilities decided that they WEREN'T going to "go quietly."
May 23, 2006 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good points.
I've been an anarchist for the last, oh, forty years or so.
There have been some fairly large societies - tribal, mostly - that did function entirely without government or states as we know it.
However, I have indeed come to the conclusion that anarchism is not workable in human society, either.
The problem is that all other methods of government are also unworkable - and even more so. Basically they ALL reduce to what most people THINK of as "anarchy" , i.e. chaos on a national or international scale. (Anarchy as defined by anarchists is almost the polar opposite of that condition.)
Anarchism COULD work IF humans were in fact what they are defined as being: rational animals. But they aren't. Their defining characteristics not only include the CAPACITY for rationality, but ALSO their primate heritage and the overwhelming fear of death as the primary motivational principle for all human action.
See Alan Harrington's brilliant work, "The Immortalist" for the consequences of this fact - most important book ever written in my view.
This eventually led me to the Transhumanist realization, as William Burroughs put it, that "the human problem has no solution." What he meant is that it has no HUMAN solution. It DOES have a Transhuman solution.
Up until the early Eighties, nobody knew exactly what that solution actually was. But when K. Eric Drexler coined the term "nanotechnology" for what was before that time merely the vague concept that it would someday be possible to engineer things on a molecular size scale, humanity turned a corner the importance of which only a few Transhumanists (even within the Transhumanist community) really understand.
Human nature doesn't have to "change." It needs merely be transcended.
And it will be in this century. Barring some catastrophic historical event that eliminates or drastically slows technological progress in the fields of nanotech, biotech (which field will eventually be subsumed by nanotech), and derivative and enabling technologies, this is nearly a certainty.
May 23, 2006 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well, no big deal to me, since I don't believe in the metaphysical concept of "rights" anyway.
That's not exactly true, Transhuman. Look it up in Black's Law dictionary, for example (which often gives abstract and concrete defs to terms like "rights." The abstract definition reads like anthropology - as if "rights" were a form of "mana." But the concrete definition says that a "right" is something you can have because you can call upon the power of the state to enforce it.
So yes, it's power (and how abstract can you get?), but power includes rights.
Neoboho
May 24, 2006 2:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Second, a counterfactual. If Nazi Germany had not invaded Poland, would the world community have been justified in intervening to prevent the Holocaust?
A very provocative question, viviane. My answer is "yes" and here's why: When the commissioners of the Versailles treaty created the new national boundaries of Europe after WWI, they inadvertently created a score of ethnic minorities, and these minorities experienced ethnic persecution at home. The work-around was to move to another nation under the passport of the new nation, and enjoy full rights afforded foreign nationals in a host nation. So Slovaks could enjoy Czechoslovakian rights in France, but if they stayed home they were likely to be second class citizens in their treatment by the Czech majority. Subsequently there was a huge migration of ethnic minorities throughout Europe, Germany included.
The "final solution" did not distinguish between German citizens and foreign nationals when it arrested and incarcerated "non-Aryans" in the death camps. So it was an international issue from the get-go, and grounds for intervention by other nations.
Of course the same thing happened in Mesopotamia...another story.
Neoboho
May 24, 2006 3:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you have to call upon the state to enforce it, you DON'T have "power" - they do.
May 24, 2006 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your argument is with Black's Law Dictionary, my friend.
Neoboho
May 24, 2006 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink