New York Times on the Web Forums Science
Technology has always found its greatest consumer in a nation's
war and defense efforts. Since the last attempts at a "Star Wars"
defense system, has technology changed considerably enough to make
the latest Missile Defense initiatives more successful? Can such an
application of science be successful? Is a militarized space
inevitable, necessary or impossible?
Read Debates, a
new Web-only feature culled from Readers' Opinions, published every
(1661 previous messages)
- 03:14pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1662
4/22/02 2:43pm Almarst , you've made some very good
Packer's piece, http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/21/magazine/21WWLN.html
has this in its last paragraph:
"On the whole, knowing is better than not knowing;
in any case, there's no going back. But at this halfway point
between mutual ignorance and true understanding, the ''global
village'' actually resembles a real one -- in my experience, not
the utopian community promised by the boosters of globalization
but a parochial place of manifold suspicions, rumors, resentments
That's clear, and shows the limited contact that TV can
provide over large distances. -- That contact is necessarily
selective and biased, even when it is a TV news organization that
often does try, as print news organizations do, to be objective. The
"common denominator" is low. The objective, at best, is to get
passing interest, for short, distractable times, from millions of
The internet can be much more focused - and has the
potential to be as clear, and focused, as it is possible to be in a
court of law, or a scientific conference -- with the additional
advantage that the internet can collapse spatial and time
constraints -- and bring information together for "connecting the
dots" in more powerful ways than have been possible before.
But people remain people, and if "the global village resembles a
real one" -- that's the human condition. Are people parochial,
suspisious, prone to rumors, resentments and half-truths? That's
true everywhere, always has been, and always will be. Are these
human traits accomodated well in human societies, with good sensible
results produced by less than perfect human animals? Good results
happen very often, all over the world, and can happen on the
The same human challenges that exist in other human communication
exist on the internet, and for the same reasons. There's a lot of
room for improvement -- and we have reasons to know the sort of
things that can work -- because similar things work elsewhere.
It may seem low and obvious to say that
"things would be better if people lied less, were
more able to check for misinformation more effectively, and if
people were both less deceptive and self deceptive than they are."
Obvious, yes. Also true. And many of the challenges of peace and
cooperation are on just that level. Institutions and procedures
Without checking, and an assumption that things can be and ought
to be checked when they matter, muddles, intentional and
unintentional, are certain to happen.
Every human group and institution I know that works well knows
that, at the level where function is actually good and flexible. As
you're pointing out, there's also a lot to criticise.
- 03:31pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1663
"the ''global village'' actually resembles a real one"
The people in a same Village KNOW each other's lives and
problems, share worries and happiness. They feel their future is
connected and interdependent.
Frequently, it seems the Americans have an aptitude of
Mari-Antuanette - "Let'em eat the cake if they have no bread".
And those looking at America from a distance, see very little to
understand what drives and worries this country. It's all foreign.
"The horse-rider would never understand the foot-walker"
- 03:42pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1664
It is important for both sides to understand the other.
And it is now more difficult than it has to be, in some ways.
- 03:42pm Apr 22, 2002 EST (#1665
There was an interesting piece today about an interesting man,
with some background somewhat similar to mine - - who has gone very
For Wolfowitz, a Busy Life Being a Lightning Rod for Bush
By ERIC SCHMITT http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/22/international/22WOLF.html
The piece includes this . . . "There's no question, if the
Messiah came tomorrow and we could settle the Arab-Israeli conflict,
it would simplify many of the challenges we face in the larger war
on terrorism," . . . . "But we just can't afford to let one problem,
no matter how acute it is and how serious it is, paralyze us."
and ends with this: . . .
"I know I'm sitting at the Defense Department," he
said, "and I know people like to put certain labels on me, but I
really believe military power is just a small piece of American
power. The greatest power we have is what we stand for."
Therefore it is important to stand for things that can be clearly
explained, in the light of evidence, and important to stand for
things that other reasonable people respect. Including people
outside the United States.
New York Times on the Web Forums Science