X-Message-Number: 17587
From: "john grigg" <>
Subject: dealing with rogue states
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:03:23 

Hello everyone,

I thought Eliezer had a very good point on why the very existence of rogue 
states can be seen as a greater and greater threat as we approach the 
spike/singularity brought on by technological progress.  But, will we pay 
the price in human lives to make the world so much safer??

This is a young man who values human life in perhaps a naieve way, but I 
respect him for it.

sincerely,

John

From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky ()
Date: Fri Sep 14 2001 - 14:18:02 MDT

Samantha Atkins wrote:
>
>"Eliezer S. Yudkowsky" wrote: > > Can you imagine the righteous indignation 
>if Afghanistan were to mount a > military attack on the US under similar 
>circumstances? That is the
>
>It, or a similar band of hooligans ALREADY HAS! Or did you miss that?


I must have. The World Trade Center would be an act of war if committed
by any foreign organization, and if the game rules are to be amended to
allow war between non-governmental organizations, it was an act of war
when committed by bin Laden. But it is not comparable to the kind of
casualties that would be inflicted by a real war. It is not comparable to 
what Iraqi civilians went through during Desert Storm. Note that I
*agree* that what Iraqi civilians went through was an acceptable price to 
pay to establish that the world will not permit wars of conquest. My
point is that the United States has not suffered a tenth, even a
thousandth, of the pain we would undergo if we were attacked by an equal or 
greater enemy.


What I don't like is the assumption that Iraqi or Afghan civilian
casualties are acceptable - undesirable, perhaps, but acceptable - while 
American civilian casualties are unimaginable horrors.


I am not a pacifist. I'd like to be someday, but I don't believe that
pacifism is morally defensible while my civil liberties only exist because 
police officers and military soldiers are willing to kill - not die, kill - 
to defend them. If Afghanistan is breeding terrorists, then I think it's 
acceptable to go in with a ground war and remove the Taliban from power, 
even if civilians and involuntary draftees are killed. Not so much because 
of the World Trade Center, but to delay the day when terrorists acquire and 
use weapons of mass destruction. I don't think I could agree with a 
retaliatory air strike unless it's followed by a ground war to permanently 
remove the offending government from power. Rogue states are destabilizing 
forces in the years leading up to the Singularity. Removing them from 
existence and discouraging other states from going rogue is a worthwhile 
endeavor. It's pointless to hurt the civilians of the country whose 
government supported the terrorists that hurt our civilians.


If the upshot of the WTC attack is that the Iraqi and/or Afghani
governments are removed from power by military force, that really would
have an impact on history. It would establish international law, like the 
original Desert Storm.


But if I think that 100,000 civilian Afghan casualties are an acceptable 
price to pay to prevent the nuclear bombing of New York and Chicago, then I 
must believe 100,000 civilian American casualties are an acceptable price as 
well.


-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=17587