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
Thursday.
(803 previous messages)
lchic
- 08:00am Mar 24, 2002 EST (#804
of 818)
Fuller : ... & ... The people of the earth are in a
most dangerous passage. We have only the barest knowledge of each
other, after centuries of relative isolation. And a little
learning is a dangerous thing. We must move rapidly to reduce the
danger, so greatly enhanced by nuclear weapons technology, by
learning enough more about each other to overcome the fright of
first encounter. Paradoxically, it is technology that makes this
awkward passage both necessary and possible.
The global event here imagined could be financed with one
percent of the world's defense budgets. Such an expenditure would
surely enhance the security of individual nations, and that is
precisely the purpose of national defense budgets.
The age-old mechanism for transcending civil strife -
aligning against an external enemy - is no longer workable. There
are no external enemies for all mankind to unite against. Thus,
we'll have to transcend global civil war not by allying ourselves
with former enemies in the face of a new enemy, but by learning
enough about our adversaries to establish forbearance for the
differences that have, during these first close encounters, so
scared and agitated us.
The linchpin of forbearance for another people is to identify
the truth or value their culture has borne forward through its
particular history. And the key to evoking a reciprocal respect is
to know the truths exemplified by one's own culture. Both sides
must find what they love in what they may at first be inclined to
hate. Then, and only then, can two cultures truly meet. -----
'Fuller by name & fuller by nature ! Showalter some of
these points - you've made - do you agree with some/all/most of the
above?
lchic
- 08:47am Mar 24, 2002 EST (#805
of 818)
Two cultures ... going to .. war The ARTISTS have seen it all
before
rshow55
- 08:49am Mar 24, 2002 EST (#806
of 818)
I agree with most, and sympathize with all. Since it is a special
Sunday, I feel like posting this.
I HEARD THE BELLS ON CHRISTMAS DAY http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/i/h/iheardtb.htm
Words: Henry W. Longfellow, Music: John B. Calkin (taken, with a few
deletions, from the web site).
I heard the bells on Christmas day Their old familiar carols
play, And wild and sweet the words repeat Of peace on earth,
good will to men.
And thought how, as the day had come, The belfries of all
Christendom Had rolled along the unbroken song Of peace on
earth, good will to men.
Till ringing, singing on its way The world revolved from
night to day, A voice, a chime, a chant sublime Of peace on
earth, good will to men.
And in despair I bowed my head “There is no peace
on earth,” I said, “For hate is strong and mocks the song
Of peace on earth, good will to men.”
Then pealed the bells more loud and deep: “God is not dead,
nor doth He sleep; The wrong shall fail, the right prevail
With peace on earth, good will to men.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historical Note: This hymn was written during the American Civil
War, as reflected by the sense of despair in the next to last
stanza. Stanzas 4-5 speak of the battle, and are usually omitted
from hymnals:
Then from each black, accursed mouth The cannon thundered in
the South, And with the sound the carols drowned Of peace on
earth, good will to men.
It was as if an earthquake rent The hearth-stones of a
continent, And made forlorn, the households born Of peace on
earth, good will to men.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
We need to understand , much better than we do, why and
how hate is strong. How hate and war happen - - happen so often --
happen so routinely, and stereotypically. Understand these things in
sympathetic, but also in clinical and scientific detail. If we did,
with communication as good as it is now, and with as much good will
as there is around now (hate notwithstanding) we could be far safer
than we are -- and the world a far less ugly place.
Lying is entirely natural human activity. So is fighting -
including fighting when it is suicidally risky -- including fighting
to the death. We need to understand, far better than we do, how
human beings do these things -- and why.
The natural pattern is to dehumanize "enemies" and "jealots."
That's very unsafe, and misleads us, too.
I thought that No Mere Terrorist By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN http://www.nytimes.com/2002/03/24/opinion/24FRIE.html
. . . was a powerful, constructive but incomplete piece. He is
talking about many of the right things, but without more - - we'll
have endless fighting - - and we can do better than that. To do so,
we have to avoid, much more consciously than we now do, setting up
situations where individuals and groups can be relied upon to fight
to the death.
The warm human virtues are vital -- and if we are to survive, and
do better, we need them to be as powerful as they can be. But they
aren't the whole story.
lchic
- 09:11am Mar 24, 2002 EST (#807
of 818)
Friedman might note that the word 'Terrorist' is NOT USED by some
media outlets who say that a terrorist may be conversely regarded as
a brave person, looking for 'change'.
lchic
- 11:58am Mar 24, 2002 EST (#808
of 818)
Cp Forum: Global Warming : Talking Point BBC http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/talking_point/default.stm
there is a sense of hopelessness amongst individuals who believe
governments should do MORE and feel ashamed that they don't!
almarst-2001
- 01:27pm Mar 24, 2002 EST (#809
of 818)
In regard to Mr. Friedman' "solution" for Afganistan:
Encountering the Taliban - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,219755,00.html
(9
following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|