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.

rshow55 - 03:36pm Feb 28, 2003 EST (# 9366 of 9367)
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.

Maybe the talking is doing some good.

Repeating from Russel's passage in 9363:

" The fundamental object (of language) is to enable men to apply themselves to a common purpose. Thus the basic notion here is agreement. "

Agreement isn't logic. It isn't necessarily rightness, compared to facts - or fit to purpose, reasonably understood - even from the narrow perspective of the group - fully considered.

We "collect the dots" in ways that we happen to. We have more "dots" - and better ways of collecting them, than ever before. We "connect the dots" in the ways that we happen to. And we are stunningly good at forming patterns - and usually astonishingly good at sorting out correct patterns. But not always.

Our "logic" - is mostly a choosing between many alteratives going on or being fashioned in our heads - and in the course of that choosing - people believe what "feels right."

But what "feels right," most often, is what, in our minds "cooperates with the interests of authority - with our group." We want to be agreeable.

Usually it works very well. By animal standards, human beings are superb - God-like by comparision with other animals - whether you believe in God or not. The standard urge - drive - compulsion - internal order that says "be agreeable" is a very good rule - but no rule is perfect, and we need, when things go monotonously wrong, to consider the need for expeption handling - not to invalidate the basic rule - but to serve the purposes the basic rule works for. We're wired to cooperate - and that's an insight that is being not only reported - but focused - by The New York Times .

. Why We're So Nice: We're Wired to Cooperate by NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/23/health/psychology/23COOP.html

The desire to be agreeable, to be graceful, to search for nice, comfortable, considerate ways of doing things within our group - and whenever possible, between groups, unless we feel challenged, makes human beings very nice, very beautiful, very often - - for all the ugliness that also happens.

And sometimes, because we're agreeable - we do much better - together - than we possibly could if we were just "logical". Some very beautiful, inspiring behavior was shown by a lot of people faced with 9/ll - for reasons that give us all valid reasons for hope:

. Of Altruism, Heroism and Evolution's Gifts in the Face of Terror by NATALIE ANGIER http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/18/health/psychology/18ALTR.html

All the same, no rule is perfect - not even the rule "be agreeable."

What happens if, to be agreeable in one way - or at one immediate step - gets us into binds? Logical binds, practical binds, moral binds?

We screw up.

It isn't an accident - we do the "immediately agreeable" thing - within our real limitations and real situation - and the act of choosing the "agreeable" - which usually works so effortlessly and so well, without our thinking about it - goes wrong.

(1 following message)

New York Times on the Web Forums Science Missile Defense