Hi Rog, thanks for your response to my musing. A few things. I agree with
your game-theory analogies; we are looking for win/win situations, and in
particular I agree that a creative higher level solution helps lower down
levels (eg a more advanced society allowing the biological patterns to
reproduce more effectively/live longer etc).
You write:
> I would argue that the US is a primary advocate of international
cooperation.
> Major factions within it support globalization, free trade, the IMF, the
> worldbank, The UN, etc etc. (some factions disagree with each too)
I was careful to talk about the US government, as I don't think that the
govt is representative of the whole US (although of course the government as
an institution has within itself levels of conflict). But - from this side
of the Atlantic - I don't think it is true to say that "the US is a primary
advocate of international cooperation." I think it has been in the past, in
some forums, especially immediately after WW2, but the more recent past -
especially the year 2001 prior to Sept 11 - has seen a markedly unilateral
approach from the US government, IMHO. (Clinton was less unilateralist, eg
getting involved in Northern Ireland, MidEast, Bosnia etc). Moreover some
would argue that the institutions that you mention - IMF, World Bank are
geared to supporting American hegemony, and that the UN, which isn't, is the
one institution that the US government has consistently tried to undermine
in recent decades (eg through not paying subscriptions). Whether those
accusations are true or not is something that is being debated in various
degrees of heat elsewhere in this forum!
You write:
> So, I would say it would be correct to say that developing effective
forms
> of international law is a good thing in the MOQ.
That was the main thing I was trying to think through, and seek agreement
on.
> It does not follow though
> that the UN, IMF, globalization, Kyoto, international court is necessarily
a
> good idea though. How can we tell? Through logic, time and
experimentation,
> imo.
I agree entirely. My point is about the underlying principle, not the
specific practice.
> ROG:
> I think your analogy could be true if US showed consistant dominant ape
> tendencies of refusing to support broader social codes. I think an
effective
> argument could be made that never in the history of the world has a
dominant
> ape tried so hard not to bully its neighbors. Perfect...hell no. But
better
> than past examples...definitely.
I wasn't really trying to argue that the US government is being the bad guy
all the time (although some do), just trying to pick out a specific tendency
as an example in order to argue for the point of principle. As it happens I
do think that the US is the society most open to DQ in the world at the
moment. As you say, not perfect, but as good as we've got so far.
> In answer then, the solution isn't just to organize, it is to organize
> effectively so that quality patterns form that are also dynamic in nature.
> The second part is critical. The US -- as is true with any complex
> organization -- is not perfect, but it is the antithesis of the problem as
> you describe.
Agreed (with a caveat about the word 'antithesis' - not sure I'd go that
far!). An optimist would say that the EU has potential to be even more
benign.
Cheers
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:01:38 BST