New York Times Readers Opinions
The New York Times
Home
Job Market
Real Estate
Automobiles
News
International
National
Washington
Campaigns
Business
Technology
Science
Health
Sports
New York Region
Education
Weather
Obituaries
NYT Front Page
Corrections
Opinion
Editorials/Op-Ed
Readers' Opinions


Features
Arts
Books
Movies
Travel
Dining & Wine
Home & Garden
Fashion & Style
New York Today
Crossword/Games
Cartoons
Magazine
Week in Review
Multimedia
College
Learning Network
Services
Archive
Classifieds
Book a Trip
Personals
Theater Tickets
Premium Products
NYT Store
NYT Mobile
E-Cards & More
About NYTDigital
Jobs at NYTDigital
Online Media Kit
Our Advertisers
Member_Center
Your Profile
E-Mail Preferences
News Tracker
Premium Account
Site Help
Privacy Policy
Newspaper
Home Delivery
Customer Service
Electronic Edition
Media Kit
Community Affairs
Text Version
TipsGo to Advanced Search
Search Options divide
go to Member Center Log Out
  

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  /

    Missile Defense

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 Thursday.


Earliest Messages Previous Messages Recent Messages Outline (6288 previous messages)

rshow55 - 02:31pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6289 of 6294) Delete Message
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.

Terrible human behavior is natural, too.

Mankind's Inhumanity to Man and Woman - As natural as human goodness? Started by rshowalter at 06:08pm Nov 12, 2000 BST and ongoing since, begins with this: http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/0

" I'm trying to float and idea here - and that's something these forums are good for.

"Looking at the world, there are so many cases of "unthinkable" and "unexplainable" evil and negligence, that the mind and heart recoils. People recall such behavior among the Nazis, and recoil, as well they might. How could "civilized, aesthetically sensitive, cultured people" ALSO act so monstrously, and with such clear and sophisticated murderous intent.

"But is this behavior so strange? Or is it the NATURAL state of people, dealing with outsiders, outsiders who they naturally dehumanize, and deal with as heartless, exploitive predators? Is it civilization and mercy that are the "unnatural" things - the things that have to be taught, and negotiated into being, and strived for?

"I'm coming to think that it is just as natural for people to act "inhumanly" - that is cruelly, and in a dehumanizing way, towards OUTSIDERS, as it is natural for people to act warmly, and with accommodation and mutual support, for people WITHIN their group.

"I'm coming to the view that, just as there is an instinct for language, and an instinct for becoming a part of a group, inborn in humans, there is an instinct to exclude outsiders, to dehumanize them, to withhold cooperation from them, and to treat them as animals, subject to manipulation an predation. I'm coming to believe that this treatment of outsiders is an instinctive species characteristic, evolved over the millions of years when people lived as gatherers and team hunters.

"If this is true, we all have the basic instincts to be kind, sensitive, and good, within our groups, but at the same time are naturally "monsters" in our behavior toward outsiders.

" If this is right, the role of civilization is to find ways of peace and effective cooperation where isolation, conflict, duplicity, and merciless manipulation, including murder, might otherwise occur.

rshow55 - 02:33pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6290 of 6294) Delete Message
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.

Lunarchick and I have been working hard, trying to help find ways toward safer and more comfortable circumstances that can be practical and useful.

The most important things we've been able to identify connect very closely with many, many things that people already do - often, and well.

Since so many problems have been solved in the past - there's some hope that problems can be solved now, and in the future. But enough things have gone wrong that there is plenty of reason to be wary, and concerned about mechanics.

Luckily, even though there's plenty of muddle, a lot of things converge.

When good solutions don't converge - what stops them from doing so?

Some of the reasons involve mechanics - and problems with complexity that will always be difficult - but that are more tractable now than they've been before.

rshow55 - 02:35pm Nov 25, 2002 EST (# 6291 of 6294) Delete Message
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.

This thread repeats itself - but according to the "fiction" that it is built for staffed organizations - that's not an intolerable fault.

A number of main points are collected and linked in 6000 rshow55 11/20/02 7:56pm

The "Putin Briefing" set out on this thread, March 17-23, 2001 and reposted on Mankind's Inhumanity to Man from #340-356 http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/383 covers a lot of other recurring themes.

There's been a lot of progress since the publication of Muddle in Moscow http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=533129 , and though I don't know if Putin himself has ever so much as looked at this board, some of the things that have happened in Russia seem as if Putin and his people have been considering the complexities http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/385 that they face, and often doing so with understanding. And seem as if the "effective rate of return" http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee7b085/393 of actions has been thought about often enough, and sensibly enough, for some good results..

More Messages Recent Messages (3 following messages)

 Read Subscriptions  Subscribe  Search  Post Message
 Your Preferences

 [F] New York Times on the Web Forums  / Science  / Missile Defense





Home | Back to Readers' Opinions Back to Top


Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Policy | Contact Us