New York Times on the Web Forums
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
(16527 previous messages)
- 05:21pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (#
16528 of 16536)
Can we do a better job of finding
truth? YES. Click "rshow55" for some things Lchic and I have
done and worked for on this thread.
. The question is how you produce a "win
win" solution under circumstances where negative sum
outcomes are also possible, and instabilities are a problem.
Currently, such circumstances result in stasis, unnecessary
losses, and wars.
By "win-win" I mean a situation where both sides gain -
according to their scorekeeping.
It is important to distinguish between a deal that looks
good - and a deal that looks good, for enough solid reasons
that it is actually stable.
Life is full of "win-win" games that actually work between
individuals and small groups of people who have a lot of bonds
between them - and a lot of common ground.
But currently, when people are significantly different -
especially if groups are as isolated and insular as nation
states are - the tendency is to say that if there is
any risk involved in the interaction - there should be
no contact, no talk.
That classifies "win-win" games out of existence very, very
Some of the reasons involve biological
characteristics of humans as a species - some are logical. But
the costs and risks of the pattern are becoming prohibitive.
"I'm hoping that the Missile Defense thread
- will clearly demonstrate how to solve the TECHNICAL
problems of negotiating stable outcomes to complex games
involving both competition and cooperation. In a case big
enough to study, but not too big. With real stakes, but not
stakes too high to permit intelligent function of
We're close enough, it seems to me - that if this hope
fails, the failure may be interesting and useful. But success
would be much better.
- 05:25pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (#
16529 of 16536)
rshow55 - 05:08pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16526 of 16527)
The most common patterns are the base on
which all other skill patterns are buit - ......I have
extreme skepticism of a complex system (and the missile
defense system is extremely complex) that will work in
real-time as it was supposed to, and on the first try.
"[E]xtreme skepticism" re MD ? A lot of people have that
rshow55 - 05:09pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16527 of 16527)
These difficulties are more-or-less accepted
for new technical systems. But for the social arrangements
of sociotechnical systems - the point is usually a great
deal less clear..... Wish I was more eloquent - but it does
seem to me that this little thread, with the small problems
here -..... It seems to me that analogies to diplomacy are
From "word frequency" to Jules Verne to "sociotechnical
systems" to diplomacy .... "pretty direct" analogies. Black
"dots" being connected in a black box, by a blind-folded
person in the dark : has a better chance !
"Wish [you were] more eloquent" ? Wish you were clear and
focused -- essential to 'eloquence'.
- 05:40pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (#
16530 of 16536)
That's a great point, cantabb - written eloquence begins
and ends with the writer's precise idea of the effect he's
trying to have upon the reader.
Rshow's lack thereof stems from the fact that he's
He throws a ton of half-baked ideas at the forum and waits
to see if someone will take some part of it seriously, instead
of making up his mind what it is he wishes to accomplish.
- 06:00pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (#
16531 of 16536)
rshow55 - 05:21pm Nov 4, 2003 EST (# 16528 of 16529)
The 2 passages you quote here, are they your own ? And
you're having a debate with yourself ?
By "win-win" I mean a situation where both
sides gain - according to their scorekeeping.
NOT from each other, which's what a negotiation involves.
It's NOT like 2 guys going to a farm and picking
strawberries in one hour ! And keeping score of how many each
Life is full of "win-win" games that
actually work between individuals and small groups of people
who have a lot of bonds between them - and a lot of common
NOT, as I said, when it involves 2 parties only (NOT
involving a pot of gold of someone else).
And if, as you say, the life is so "full of" 'win-win'
solutions ("games"), what's NEW in there that you're talking
about and trying to "teach" ??
But currently, when people are significantly
different - ...
They always were.
As to your comments on "biological characteristics of
humans as a species," well, how familar are you with this area
-- so far removed from yours ?
We're close enough ["to solve the TECHNICAL
problems of negotiating stable outcomes to complex games":
re MD], it seems to me - that if this hope fails, the
failure may be interesting and useful. But success would be
"We" [rshow & lchich] are "close enough" to something
else, unfortunately ! Not to your fond hopes, toward which I
don't think you did much of anything at all.
(5 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums