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.
(13836 previous messages)
rshow55
- 10:56am Sep 22, 2003 EST (#
13837 of 13840) 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.
Great, Fredmoore !
This quote was on the last page of the American Heritage
Picture History of World War II , by C.L.
Sulzberger and the editors of American Heritage ,
published in 1966.
It is from an undelivered speech by Franklin D. Roosevelt,
written shortly before his death.
" Today, we are faced with the
pre-eminent fact that, if civilization is to survive, we
must cultivate the science of human relationships --- the
ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together and
work together in the same world, at peace. "
I've repeated that quote a number of times, including these
early in 2002. 13461-2 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YSVZbYrmHo2.1088467@.f28e622/15152
Great postings since I went away - I'm reviewing them. A
lot of hard work by gisterme - and a LOT of discussion
about what cheating is - - and what fairness is.
Is change cheating ?
You can always find someone to say "yes."
Almost always, you can find people with power saying "yes."
Sometimes rightly. Not always, by any means.
Arguments that human beings have - between themselves - and
inside their own heads - are "circular" - usually. Very
often - workable answers converge.
Without some "going round and round" - they usually can't
converge to any satisfactory result. Once you have a
result converged - it can often be taught. If some
simple things were understood and actually learned -
we'd all be much safer, and more prosperous, too. The back and
forth of this thread shows most of the ways that convergence
to understanding actually happens - for real people.
- - -
GWB is actually going to the UN and talking to people.
That's important.
I'm working. A lot of postings since 13693 http://forums.nytimes.com/webin/WebX?8@13.YSVZbYrmHo2.1088467@.f28e622/15386
- including some very good ones by gisterme .
We have to worry about "end games" that are stable -
and do well for human beings. That means we have to
worry about "cheating" and "fairness" in ways
that actually work for the people and groups involved - in
ways that can actually be explained.
If things go wrong - the world could easily end.
Expressed willingness to go to an exterminatory nuclear war -
might lead to actual nuclear exchanges.
Containing those exchanges would be hard - putting
the matter gently.
Even exchanges on something like this board often tend to
explode - often in ways people didn't intend.
I'm not working to be an arsonist - any more than
jorian319 is - and I expect that, dispite his comment,
gisterme knows it. I know that I'm working to be a
fireman - and to teach people to break chains - when
that's what's wanted for good reasons - and let chains
propagate - when that's the thing that makes sense. Chain
Breakers http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?14@@.ee79f4e/618
http://www.mrshowalter.net/a_md4000s/md4125.htm
We need to work things out - http://talk.guardian.co.uk/WebX?13@@.ee79f4e/619
I appreciate this thread.
cantabb
- 11:03am Sep 22, 2003 EST (#
13838 of 13840)
One of the ways to express one's appreciation for this
thread would be to post on-topic, without the
endlesslessly repetitious, unfocused ramblings.
(2 following messages)
New York Times on the Web Forums
Science
Missile Defense
|