Re: short article on pop. devel.
Dear Peter: You have made many points, I hesitate to say good points because I disagree with some of them. Without going through all your comments, I would like to keep this at a general brainstorming rather than a nitpicking exercise. War exists. For many reasons - all of them justifiable to someone at sometime at someplace. War in all it's manifestations is the negation of the highest human ideals of family, community, safety, security and humaness. It destroys property, lives, environment, hope and sanity. At the end of the day, all wars end, so one might reasonably ask, if it is going to end anyway, why not stop before it begins. Reasons for war are many, but in most cases, there is oneindividual or several holding some particular political power, or control of a resource, or hereditary rights, who by using their position create the conditions by which the rest of a citizenery are convinced - or forced into military service and who do the actual fighting. The obvious place of intervention is against the one or few. Not against the military and citizenery in massive armed conflict. So what system, organization, methodology can be imagined that would provide intervention before we get to the state of armies and violence. I have postulated a "police force" which you seem to negate as having within it vices that are as bad or evil as war. I disagree. For the sake of exploration, what other means than law and police might we choose. Perhaps the religions of the world should submit a panel that looks at various countries and their leadership and brings the full weight of spiritual morality against a leader who is creating the conditions of war - but then what, if there is no force to enforce that validation. Perhaps, a Universal Agency which has the rights to meet with and dialog with any ruler and challenge their assumptions and bring into the light of public scrutiny their pathologys or in some cases legitimate reasons and the weight of public opinion can be brought to bear on their thoughts and plans. Perhaps a singular law against violence similar to the one in the Ten Commandments - Thou shalt not kill, should be used as justification for abeyance or removal from office of any leader so accused and found guilty. Perhaps, wars should be settled by champions, ie David and Goliath contests or by teams as it appears the Mayans did. Certainly more civilized than modern war. In the past many wars were caused by races, such as the Mongols or the Huns or the Vikings, literally appearing from nowhere, determined to conquer. Or by religous crusades whether Christian or Muslim. But now, we live in a Global Village, short of an invasion from outer space, the communications of the 20th Century eliminates those kinds of surprises. Many wars were territorial, but all the territories of the world are now filled, in fact even overpopulated by any reasonable standard. Would the world allow territorial expansionist wars - I think not. Iran tried it, we wouldn't let it, Serbia and Croatia tried it and we finally decreed that genocide and ethnic cleansing for territorial expansion is no longer acceptable. Of course, the elimination of war would cause the greatest depression in economic history - all those soldiers and military suppliers would have to shed workers like crazy which would probably collapse our economic system. But the irony of an economic system that can only exist by preparing for war, fighting wars and recuperating from wars, from any objective viewpoint has to indicate a mass psychological dysfunction. Well, those are some of my thoughts Respectfully, Thomas Lunde -- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Marks) To: "Thomas Lunde" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: short article on pop. devel. Date: Fri, Jul 16, 1999, 5:01 PM Thomas, Given the carnage of war - the wasted use of resources - the brutalities of ethnic cleansing, torture, concentration camps, I am willing to entertain any suggestions except the one you postulate which is fear of change. We agree on the undesirability of the techniques and artifacts of war [we probably agree on many other things]. We just happen to disagree on the desirability of one particular tactic - an international police force - for eliminating them. If we get to the point where we let slogans rule our lives, I prefer Jesus's - Love thy neightbour as you love yourself. Regardless of either of our preferences, I am convinced that Lord Acton's has (for good or bad) withstood the test of time better than most others. Think of the ol west and the lawless frontier town with it's bully's, drunkeness, gambling and prostitution. You elect a marshal - or appoint and their job is to arrest and present a case for the court in which a judge makes a decision as to whether a law has been broken. But these elected marshals have become the police forces that, among other things, forcibly break up see
Re: short article on pop. devel.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Thomas Lunde wrote: I know it has been postulated before, but I think it is time, perhaps evolutionary to make a conscious decision to outlaw war. If that requires a world police force, so be it. Both already exists for some time: The U.N. has outlawed war and the U$ has established a world police force (aka USAF). The problem is that the latter gives a damn about the former, is not democratically legitimized, and doesn't even pay its U.N. member fees. Greetings, Chris Quick Political Scholastic Aptitude Test (QPSAT) This test consists of one (1) multiple-choice question (so you better get it right!). Here's a list of the countries that the USAF has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum: China 1945-46 Korea 1950-53 China 1950-53 Guatemala 1954 Indonesia 1958 Cuba 1959-60 Guatemala 1960 Congo 1964 Peru 1965 Laos 1964-73 Vietnam 1961-73 Cambodia 1969-70 Guatemala 1967-69 Grenada 1983 Libya 1986 El Salvador 1980s Nicaragua 1980s Panama 1989 Iraq 1991-99 Sudan 1998 Afghanistan 1998 Yugoslavia 1999 Question: In how many of these instances did a democratic government, respectful of human rights, occur as a direct result? Choose one of the following: (a) 0 (b) zero (c) none (d) not a one (e) zip (f) a whole number between -1 and +1 (g) zilch
Re: short article on pop. devel.
-- From: Steve Kurtz [EMAIL PROTECTED] POPULATION GROWTH IS PIVOTAL ISSUE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by Georgie Anne Geyer WASHINGTON -- It's not working. For years, people who were against family planning could argue, and hope, and pretend, and weave tales about the glories of open grasslands in Kazakhstan as an answer to the world's population problem -- and some people listened. But now, in a sudden rush of new information about both population pressures and the Earth's sheer sustainability, we can clearly see how foolishly self-destructive that approach has been and continues to be. (snip) Hi Steve: I just read the article you suggested and what I found most interesting is: The fact is that we know now what works in developing peoples and countries to limit population growth: a reasonably non-corrupt representative government, appropriate forms of economic freedom, a just legal system, a wise diversification of economic resources and income, a high investment in education, women's rights AND family planning. Thomas: It would seem to me, that if we know what works and the above 7 points do not seem so drastic that we couldn't - through the UN decide that each country must re-align their political systems, create the structures mentioned above and solve the biggest problem facing mankind -overpopulation. Given the alternatives, wars, starvation, misuse of resources, the above changes seem quite benign. Quote: A prime example: Arab Tunisia on the northern coast of Africa had 4 million people in 1957 when it gained independence from France; with a strong family planning program, it now has 9 million people and is one of the fastest-developing countries in the world. Its neighbor Algeria also had about 4 million in 1957; today it has 30 million people and is ensnared in seemingly endless civil war and chaos. There are many such examples. Thomas: I know it has been postulated before, but I think it is time, perhaps evolutionary to make a conscious decision to outlaw war. If that requires a world police force, so be it. Law and order, good government, good use of unsustainable resources and deliberate use of sustainable resources only make common sense. Forget the economies of the marketplace in which we use a half a gallon of gas to go the the convience store to pick up a pack of cigerattes, it's time to bring in a higher level criteria other than just we can do it and keep the price down. Respectfully, Thomas Lunde
Re: short article on pop. devel.
On Mon, 12 Jul 1999, Thomas Lunde wrote:
I know it has been postulated before, but I think it is time, perhaps
evolutionary to make a conscious decision to outlaw war. If that requires a
world police force, so be it.
Be careful what you wish for!
I doubt you're suggesting that the US should serve such a function, so are you
thinking of a UN police force capable of policing even the US? If so, are
you proposing this as an experiment to see if Lord Acton was right ("Absolute
power corrupts absolutely")?
If nothing else, such concentrated power would be an irresistible magnet for
precisely those people whose instincts that power was created to control. The
danger of cooptation seems insurmountable.
P-)
--
___o -o Peter Marks [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_-\_, -_\ /\_ 15307 NE 202nd St., Woodinville, WA 98072
(*)/ (*)-(*)^(*) (425)489-0501 http://www.halcyon.com/marks
--
More comfortable AND faster ... that's REAL technology!
Re: short article on pop. devel.
I agree in general with Thomas' evaluations. Enforcing peace with the threat of force seems a particularly perverse requirement, though. We humans are alone in this particular dilemma, as ethics appears tied to our form of self-reflective consciousness. Steve Thomas: It would seem to me, that if we know what works and the above 7 points do not seem so drastic that we couldn't - through the UN decide that each country must re-align their political systems, create the structures mentioned above and solve the biggest problem facing mankind -overpopulation. Given the alternatives, wars, starvation, misuse of resources, the above changes seem quite benign. Thomas: I know it has been postulated before, but I think it is time, perhaps evolutionary to make a conscious decision to outlaw war. If that requires a world police force, so be it. Law and order, good government, good use of unsustainable resources and deliberate use of sustainable resources only make common sense. Forget the economies of the marketplace in which we use a half a gallon of gas to go the the convience store to pick up a pack of cigerattes, it's time to bring in a higher level criteria other than just we can do it and keep the price down.
short article on pop. devel.
http://www.uexpress.com/ups/opinion/column/gg/text/1999/06/gg9906011832.html POPULATION GROWTH IS PIVOTAL ISSUE IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT by Georgie Anne Geyer WASHINGTON -- It's not working. For years, people who were against family planning could argue, and hope, and pretend, and weave tales about the glories of open grasslands in Kazakhstan as an answer to the world's population problem -- and some people listened. But now, in a sudden rush of new information about both population pressures and the Earth's sheer sustainability, we can clearly see how foolishly self-destructive that approach has been and continues to be. (snip)
