|
Post by Jeff on Aug 11, 2006 2:00:16 GMT -5
That's the wrong word really. I'd call it modern militant individualism. Since 1999 or so Justin and I have been talking about this problem. We've exchanged passing ideas and some abstracts for essays that we never wrote, but nothing more serious. I'd like to see this group take up the topic in a more serious way.
Anyone interested?
Here is a quote from John Reid (08/09/06), the British Home Secretary, which nicely frames the basic question that Justin and I keep coming back to:
"What happens when the threat to our nation, and hence to all of us as individuals, comes not from a fascist state but from what might be called fascist individuals? Individuals who are unconstrained by any of the international conventions, laws agreements or standards, and have therefore, unconstrained intent? Individuals who can network courtesy of new technology and access modern chemical, biological and other means of mass destruction, and who have therefore unconstrained capability?"
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Aug 11, 2006 3:05:17 GMT -5
I did a post over on Slate's The Fray about this topic tonight. I made two spelling errors there, for which I am ashamed. But here it is: www.slate.com/?id=3936&m=17973887(PS The more I read my own writing, listen to my music, or hear myself speaking, the more I realize that I am a complete Imbecile. I don't know how you guys put up with me.) Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Aug 11, 2006 3:27:19 GMT -5
heck, here was my post:
Subject: social world From: hopelesslynaive Date: Aug 11 2006 4:07AM
"Liquid world" is a euphemism for a fundamentally social world. Although principles like freedom and patriotism are noble, they no longer address the facts of our world. There aren't any tough, principled stands to make. The days when we could lay down our lives for codes and conventions are gone. Now, we are forced to meet those who would destroy us. Maybe they will be striking a match on their shoes on some transatlantic flight. More likely they will be like us, watching and waiting.
There is nothing inherently new about a "liquid world." There are just a lot of people who pretended the world was ever different. Maybe money and military might gave their fantasy some weight, but it was always gossamer.
Some, like Jacob Weisberg, think The Left just doesn't take "the global battle against Islamic fanaticism seriously." Almost certainly we will be engaged in military conflict against global terrorism for years to come. At worst this engagement will lead to the as yet unrealized terror of a war between the West and Mohammedans of every stripe. At best it will breed scores of new successful terrorist plots. What Weisberg takes for naivety, we'd be wiser to call a deeper perception.
We all want another option. Our best hope is to begin dealing with problems with an eye toward their effects on the individuals most harmed by any of our policies, both domestic and foreign. In other words, a strict cost/benefit analysis will no longer suffice. We can no longer ignore "the least of these." Make the poor, the hurt, the disenfranchised the focus of your concern, and in fifty years there may still be a civilized world.
The problem with this suggestion is that it will not allay the wrath of those who perceive themselves to be animated by the will of God, or our victims. Saletan makes an important point: Some of us will die. But, as President Bush is so fond of saying, we must "stay the course." Our hope must be one in which we seek to empathize with and include the hostile other, not bomb him into submission.
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Aug 12, 2006 9:13:21 GMT -5
I'm actually looking forward to the day when someone gets caught hiding explosives inside their body to take on a flight. Or gets caught making a bomb that would be undetectable by all but the most extravagant of means. What happens when you can't determine if someone's a bomb, regardless of how well you look? The only option that would be left would be to try to deal with the cause of the hate, instead of the results of the hate.
All you can do is deal with the circumstances that caused the fascist individual.
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 12, 2006 19:24:27 GMT -5
I agree with you guys that our best hope of dealing with the threat of fanatical violence in today's world is to address the sources of the fanatacism.
Fanatacism is rooted in poverty and insularity. In the middle-east, you have both. Poor people inhabit insular cultural worlds, where their education is designed to reinforce ancient beliefs and hatreds.
How do you address this? Violence is not the answer. Someone once said, "An eye for an eye makes the world blind." Trite, but true. When we went to war in Afghanistan, I felt queasy. When our administration then decided to bring the war to Iraq, I felt a deep dismay. Our purported mission was to "bring democracy to the nation." But how do you force a nation with Iraq's unstable history to adopt a Western political premise? You can't. You don't. Not through violence, anyway.
So now, our administration is concerned about an encroaching Civil War in Iraq. Excuse me, but Mr. President, but didn't you realize that this was inevitable? Did you even glance at the history of this region before deciding that America could just sail-in on golden wings and establish order?
But I don't think that was really the purpose of this war, anyway. Our debacle in Iraq couldn't have been for noble purposes. I can't seriously believe that our administration thought America could bring order to Iraq through violent means. We don't live in the British Colonial days anymore. Iraq isn't The New World. Nah, I don't think Bush and Rumsfeld were that dumb. I think this war was sold to the American people as a noble pursuit, but was really fought in an effort to make a market for American corporations in the region. It was a battle for economics, and for oil, but certainly not for order or democracy.
But even if I accept this war as an economic necessity, it still leaves me aghast. How shortsighted is our administration? Can it be that a modern President only thinks in four-year blocks? There is no way, in my mind, that even an imbicile president could be oblivious to the way in which diverse, turbulent nations react to an invading force. Is it possible that Bush and Co. actually thought America would someday say "mission accomplished" in Iraq, and withdraw its presence? I don't believe it. I honestly believe they were thinking only of the money to be made, and of the vast military resources at their disposal to make it.
It's a shame. Our violent actions in the Middle-East will haunt this country for years to come. Within 5 years, Iraq will have a political upheaval with or without our presence in the region. Within 10 years, America will find itself faced with a whole new generation of terrorists, polarized against us by our actions in the region when they were children.
How can we resolve these matters? I don't think we can. Not as a nation, anyway. We are fucked. But then, that's the story of history. Ultimately, it's all up to the individual, and the will to survive, and the courage to love.
Sorry about the bitterness, but that's how I feel.
|
|
|
Post by ryan on Aug 12, 2006 23:24:37 GMT -5
Let me elaborate on what I wrote earlier: When I said, "We are fucked," I mean as a nation, not as individuals. I do not believe there is any kind of realistic policy America could adopt which would undo the damage we've already done in the Middle-East. And this isn't just because of Bush and Co.'s recent bungling. This extends as far back as America has had its finger in the region. I won't even pretend to be an authoritative expert on America's history of Middle-Eastern affairs, but I know that Israel wouldn't exist without American intervention, and this is why anti-Israeli sentiment translates into anti-American sentiment. I also know that America helped put Saddam Hussein into office and helped arm his regime -- and then saw his regime turn against us for various reasons. If you feel like reading some history that's bound to repeat itself, browse these articles: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Husseinreadthese.blogspot.com/2003_12_15_readthese_archive.htmlwww.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.htmlwww.unknownnews.net/saddam.htmlSo, what is the answer? I say there isn't one. I say that as the world's population-density increases, and as we find ourselves connected by an ever-tightening net of communication, our differences will unavoidably be thrown into sharp relief, and greater violence will unavoidably result, facilitated by advances in consumer technology. I'm not trying to be pessimistic. I feel that this is a realistic assessment, based on my understanding of history and human nature. I applaud Jeff and Tyler's call for compassion. Compassion is the only way in which we, as individuals, can overcome the differences between us, and ultimately the evils begat by our governments. But compassion is, alas, a virtue limited to individuals. Here's why I say that: The only scenario in which I can imagine America repairing the damage we've done in the Middle-East is so idealistic it could never possibly work. The problem with it is that it ignores basic human nature. Impatience, greed, corruption, lust for power -- all these things must be accounted for in any political strategem, because they lie at the hearts of all men. Some of us are able to motivate ourselves into acts of compassion -- but I do not belive there's a single living soul who, at his or her heart, isn't a selfish bastard. But then, who's to blame us? Boil our lives down, and what you'll find is a scrabble for food, water, shelter, and an unyeilding ache which draws us through the years in search of happiness. This is the curse of mortality. We are programmed to seek more, and to become discontent with what we have. If we, as a nation, could ween ourselves off the use of fossil-fuels to power our cars -- that would actually be a start. It would dramatically reduce our nation's oil-consumption, and would thereby reduce our reliance on the Middle-East to provide that oil. But here's where it gets depressing. Let's say we decide, today, to make that change. Realistically, it will take a good 20 to 30 years before we really start to see its effects. Car-manufacturers cannot retool their factories overnight. And moreover, the average Janet or Joe can't afford to buy a new car simply because internal-combustion engines are being phased-out. And truthfully, I'm skeptical that gasoline-powered engines could ever be phased-out entirely. Maybe that's fine; maybe we don't need to entirely dispose of our gasoline-powered engines to drastically reduce this nation's oil consumption. So, we reduce the nation's oil consumption. Fine. That reduces this country's reliance on the Middle-East, which is the world's hotbed of militant individualism, and its major source of oil. But it doesn't do anything to actually address the problems in the Middle-East. To do that, I believe we would have to adopt a policy of Compassion in the Middle-East. This policy could be tri-fold, offering Monetary, Educational, and Material assistance to registered individuals. We could set-up a system whereby registered children in poor areas can obtain a free education. We could subtly craft the educational materials to include a larger viewpoint on world-affairs, to help the children put their own lives in context. We could actually provide support to the parents of the registered children, supplying food, medicine, and money where needed. We could respond to the call of the poor and oppressed throughout the Middle-East -- without offering guns or military involvement. We would become complete humanitarians. We would let the people of the Middle-East fight their own wars. We would offer food, money, and aid, to the individuals affected -- but would not participate in their conflicts. This would have to go hand-in-hand with continuing anti-terrorism security measures, such as the ones we already see in-place, because threats of terrorism would continue unabided, doubtlessly for decades, until all the current fanaticals have passed away and an entire generation has grown into maturity witnessing only America's kindness. And the fact is, this scenario is so idealistic I find it laughable. But the only other scenario I imagine that might improve American relations with the Middle-East would be a complete and total withdrawal from the region. And yet, in this world of increasing connectivity, I doubt that scenario is any more plausable. The fact is, we're in for the ride, and it simply isn't going to get any better than it is today. But I'm not preaching gloom and doom. Yes, I say we're fucked, but what I mean is, there simply isn't any realistic way in which we can improve the situation in the Middle-East. Affairs there were fucked from the outset, and have become steadily more fucked century after century. It is beyond human capacity to work these matters out. All we can do, as individuals, is try to understand the causes of militant individualism, and try to empathize.
|
|
|
Post by Jeff on Aug 13, 2006 1:49:53 GMT -5
Ryan, This is exactly the way my thoughts have been moving. Yesterday I was thinking about how Nations deal only with Nations and Individuals were supposed to only deal with Individuals. The problem is that Individuals are now dealing with Nations. The solution, if there is one, must lie in Nations dealing with Individuals. It was so strange to read your post, because you fleshed out this basic idea so well. I just don’t think this goal is nearly as idealistic as you do. Nations now have the capacity to recognize all the individuals of the world. By “recognize” I mean the individual equivalent of recognixing a Nation. And we could do this without undermining anyone’s sovereignty. Consider the Federally Recognized Tribes in the US. Our request for personal information could be strictly voluntary, and it would carry with it no contracts or promises. Each person in the world could be recognized and enrolled. Then all US foreign aid would be Nation to Individual. We would abandon giving any money to states just as you say. We would openly seek to pass this program on the UN as soon as possible, so that all nations could fund it. Right now we spend about 20 Billion on foreign aid. That’s laughable considering that each year of the war in Iraq costs about 200 Billion. (The high estimates for the cost of the war have it at $300 billion/year while the low ones have it at about $100 billion/year. I am splitting the difference.) Right now there are about 6.5 billion humans on the planet. If we subtract the population of North America and Europe (about 332,156,000 and 724,722,000, respectively) we get about 5.5 billion people we need to recognize and serve. For the cost of one year of the war in Iraq (and remember guys we are somewhere in the middle of year 4) we could give every man, woman, and child living outside of North America and Europe about $36.36/year. The average worldwide income is about $5000 a year. But this includes North America and Europe. When you take those away the figure goes down considerably. (BTW: If you want a dose of real humility, go here and put in your income: www.globalrichlist.com . I make about $45,000/year which means that I am the 103,478,261st richest person in the world. I am in the top 1.72% of world wage earners.) If we exclude North America and Europe, the average worldwide income is about $2182/year. The average working person in the world makes about $6/day. This means that our aid to them, as miniscule as it sounds to us, would be about the equivalent of a week’s work. And not everyone in a family works. We would give a family of four around $150. If the family was a single wage earning one, like mine, that would amount to about 6.6% of yearly income. It would be like someone giving my family about $3000 for no reason. Of course, we could arrange for ways that individuals could pool their money to accomplish the goals they found important, like health care, education, and infrastructure. But they would make their own choices. Also keep in mind that $200 billion was just a figure drawn from my ass. If we could get Canada, Europe, and Australia to cooperate, we could give a lot more. And the reduction in terrorism would be just one effect of this program. The poor almost always spend their money immediately. So, all the poorest nations of the world would feel an uptick in their economies. Beyond this, it would do as much to inspire world unity as anything that I can imagine, far better than putting a man on the moon. Hey, it’s late. I am going to go to bed now. But it isn’t such a fantastical idea, Ryan. We’ve already spent exactly the kind of money I am talking about. We just spent it on something else. Jeff
|
|
|
Post by Tyler on Aug 13, 2006 9:06:40 GMT -5
There's no way you can get the us government to give the kind of money that we've spent on the war toward combating poverty. They don't see any personal gains from it. We'll have to figure out a way to convince them that it'll be for their own good. The only way I can think of to do this, and I've been thinking about it for a while, is already happening in the form of our deficit. We do spend a good deal of money overseas for the goods we need, we just do it as cheaply as possible. If we could convince Walmart that East Timor is a good market... If we can convince them that there is profit to be made not just in optimizing markets but also in creating markets...
|
|