Wednesday, July 13, 2005
Terror
Sorry that this is so dark. You were warned.
So I sit here, with my imaginative mind, contemplating the future. As technology improves, I cant see us being able to stop terrorists in the future. Far from it. I cant even see the world being able to maintain it non-negotiation with terrorists.
Let go into a hyperthetical. Your .. (I was gonna say your George Bush, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone) the president of the U.S.A. You receive a communication from a terrorist, who informs you that they have infected the water supply of Washington DC with nanites, which when activated, will kill the person infected.
So approximately 6 million people are infected, and the terrorists promise to kill 1/3 of the infected people every hour until you free their leader from his prison cell.
This infection includes most of the government of the country as well as yourself. The terrorists demonstrate a willingness to go through with their threat after the first hour.
What do you do?
(That was rhetorical, I'm sure there is some insane solution involving EMP-ing the city, or something similar, but this is only one of many possibilities I can come up with for the future of terrorism)
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
So what does this mean for us? Where is the world going to be when we reach this stage?
I don't know. But I'm scared.
So I sit here, with my imaginative mind, contemplating the future. As technology improves, I cant see us being able to stop terrorists in the future. Far from it. I cant even see the world being able to maintain it non-negotiation with terrorists.
Let go into a hyperthetical. Your .. (I was gonna say your George Bush, but I wouldn't wish that on anyone) the president of the U.S.A. You receive a communication from a terrorist, who informs you that they have infected the water supply of Washington DC with nanites, which when activated, will kill the person infected.
So approximately 6 million people are infected, and the terrorists promise to kill 1/3 of the infected people every hour until you free their leader from his prison cell.
This infection includes most of the government of the country as well as yourself. The terrorists demonstrate a willingness to go through with their threat after the first hour.
What do you do?
(That was rhetorical, I'm sure there is some insane solution involving EMP-ing the city, or something similar, but this is only one of many possibilities I can come up with for the future of terrorism)
-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-
So what does this mean for us? Where is the world going to be when we reach this stage?
I don't know. But I'm scared.
# posted by ChinDoGu @ 19:16 
Comments:
<< Home
The funny thing is, I'm really not scared. For several reasons. Partly, I think, because this world is not the it; there is a bigger, better (perfect) world coming where this shit doesn't happen and I will be heading there. So what happens here is less important and if I get blow sky high (or swallow poisoned nanites) I just get there sooner.
And partly because I don't think the threat is as big as people seem to think. I especially don't think that every act of terrorism is as a result of muslims, but that's a side issue. It's a big deal at the moment because of 9-11 but terrorism has been happening in a big way for ages (both speaking literally and historically, and in terms of 'during my lifetime'). This has happened before and will happen again, the same things in the same ways. And familiarity breeds complacency.
It does upset me that people have so little respect for others but you can find fanatics everywhere. Look at the Sydney Anglican diocese.
And partly because I don't think the threat is as big as people seem to think. I especially don't think that every act of terrorism is as a result of muslims, but that's a side issue. It's a big deal at the moment because of 9-11 but terrorism has been happening in a big way for ages (both speaking literally and historically, and in terms of 'during my lifetime'). This has happened before and will happen again, the same things in the same ways. And familiarity breeds complacency.
It does upset me that people have so little respect for others but you can find fanatics everywhere. Look at the Sydney Anglican diocese.
Not sure that your dilemma goes to the heart of the situation that we've got now, though. "Release so and so or we kill xx number of people" is one thing, but "We don't like your way of life, we have no demands, and/or if we made demands they would be such that you couldn't accept them - i.e., we want to see you and your way of life completely disappear" is a different thing altogether. We used to debate whether or not it was right to negotiate with terrorists. (In at least some cases.) In the current situation, I'm not sure that it's possible ...
Just a thought.
Just a thought.
# posted by 
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:08:00 am
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:08:00 am
Ok.. And you have a point, what about something closer to now.
Replace release X with withdraw your troops from Iraq.
There has to be a point where you start negotiating. I think. Mabey.
Replace release X with withdraw your troops from Iraq.
There has to be a point where you start negotiating. I think. Mabey.
You can't negotiate EVER. I know sounds trite but if you open that door you cant close it again.
As to worrying about the future, Mankinds greatest ability has always been the termination of our fellow man (or woman) and I doubt that will ever change. So my advice is Thank god for each day you see, keep your eyes open and dont accept ticking suitcases from strangers
As to worrying about the future, Mankinds greatest ability has always been the termination of our fellow man (or woman) and I doubt that will ever change. So my advice is Thank god for each day you see, keep your eyes open and dont accept ticking suitcases from strangers
# posted by : Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:59:00 pm
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 12:59:00 pm
Thats easy to say hook, but what about if its the entire population of nsw on the line?
I cant say im certian how id react. Id like to think that the unwillingness to negotiate would remain, but what about when qld and NT are already gone, and were next on the list?
I honestly dont know at what point (if any) I would negotiate, but I think theres gotta be a point where its the lesser of 2 evils?
I cant say im certian how id react. Id like to think that the unwillingness to negotiate would remain, but what about when qld and NT are already gone, and were next on the list?
I honestly dont know at what point (if any) I would negotiate, but I think theres gotta be a point where its the lesser of 2 evils?
As I see it, the question boils down to: "Is the principal of 'non-negotiation' more important than human life?"
From that, one can easily ask "Is any principal more important than human life?"
The terroists already have their answer, do we have ours?
From that, one can easily ask "Is any principal more important than human life?"
The terroists already have their answer, do we have ours?
# posted by : Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:19:00 pm
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 4:19:00 pm
It is something that we can only answer personally I guess.
I my case "Is the principal of 'non-negotiation' more important than human life?" I would say yes. but as I said it is a personal thing
I my case "Is the principal of 'non-negotiation' more important than human life?" I would say yes. but as I said it is a personal thing
# posted by : Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:48:00 pm
: Thursday, July 14, 2005 6:48:00 pm
Hmm, I think the media has a lot to do with the current state of terrorism in the world, not just the causes. Terrorists are finding it simply too easy to get their message across as every global network tv station in the world goes absolutely nuts over the latest terrorist action.
Perhaps if we looked at ways to curb the exposure they're getting for their acts of death and destruction we might in turn see the occurences of these actions dwindle. I am not saying that this type of thing won't happen, I'm just pointing out, that if they didn't get the limelight so often they probably wouldn't do these things as often.
A little naive I suppose and I'm aware these types of things will still probably happen in any case. Still, I feel it's definitely a contributing factor - free propaganda you could say.
Perhaps if we looked at ways to curb the exposure they're getting for their acts of death and destruction we might in turn see the occurences of these actions dwindle. I am not saying that this type of thing won't happen, I'm just pointing out, that if they didn't get the limelight so often they probably wouldn't do these things as often.
A little naive I suppose and I'm aware these types of things will still probably happen in any case. Still, I feel it's definitely a contributing factor - free propaganda you could say.
Scuicide bombings in Israel dont get much media attention, especially when compared to the bombings in London, but they are continuing to occur despite this.
If one group ever had the power to wipe out an entire state of Australia then there would be no stopping them, whether we negociated or not, meet one demand and they give you another, and another, until you cant actually meet it and they kill everyone anyway.
If one group ever had the power to wipe out an entire state of Australia then there would be no stopping them, whether we negociated or not, meet one demand and they give you another, and another, until you cant actually meet it and they kill everyone anyway.
# posted by : Friday, July 15, 2005 12:08:00 pm
: Friday, July 15, 2005 12:08:00 pm
Hook: I think I actually agree with you. I dont think human life is more important than non-negociation. But what about humanity. (Or the 0th law of robotics for those whove read asimov) Is non-negotiation worth more than irrovicable or extreme damage to our society?
Jen: Your example presupposes two things. 1) that all terrorists are irrational. 2) That they will never be satisfied no matter what we give them.
You might be right, but I guess I can see a future where there might be terrorists who ARE rational and only have a single goal.
What happens after they get their goal, and someone else tries to repeat the same trick, who is less rational, is still open to debate though.
Jen: Your example presupposes two things. 1) that all terrorists are irrational. 2) That they will never be satisfied no matter what we give them.
You might be right, but I guess I can see a future where there might be terrorists who ARE rational and only have a single goal.
What happens after they get their goal, and someone else tries to repeat the same trick, who is less rational, is still open to debate though.
Have been stewing on Matt's dilemma for a while.
In principle, I strongly endorse the principle of non-negotiation with terrorists. Rationally,
it has very strong underpinnings. I hope that if I was taken hostage, my government wouldn't change its policies on my behalf. I suppose in that case the options you have to work with are escape or (if possible, in truly dire cases) suicide.
BUT if I was the politician responsible for making such a decision, there would be a point where I would decide that averting human suffering in the here and now was more important than any abstract principle or future risk.
So my personal response? Buy time, do everything you can to foil their dastardly plans, and then as a last resort, if things are truly too horrific, cave in - in such a way that does ensure the safety of the people you're trying to save.
And perhaps your next step is to engineer your resignation in disgrace, so as to try to prevent terrorists from taking advantage of your supposed 'weakness' in future.
I'm not sure that the last part of that would work, but it's the best attempt I've come up with to date to reconcile two competing but equally valid (to me) points of view.
In principle, I strongly endorse the principle of non-negotiation with terrorists. Rationally,
it has very strong underpinnings. I hope that if I was taken hostage, my government wouldn't change its policies on my behalf. I suppose in that case the options you have to work with are escape or (if possible, in truly dire cases) suicide.
BUT if I was the politician responsible for making such a decision, there would be a point where I would decide that averting human suffering in the here and now was more important than any abstract principle or future risk.
So my personal response? Buy time, do everything you can to foil their dastardly plans, and then as a last resort, if things are truly too horrific, cave in - in such a way that does ensure the safety of the people you're trying to save.
And perhaps your next step is to engineer your resignation in disgrace, so as to try to prevent terrorists from taking advantage of your supposed 'weakness' in future.
I'm not sure that the last part of that would work, but it's the best attempt I've come up with to date to reconcile two competing but equally valid (to me) points of view.
# posted by : Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:02:00 am
: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 4:02:00 am
For once, I have no distinct answer. While I /think/ I believe in the non-negotiation principle, I am torn by the fact that I beleive there is no such thing as an acceptable sacrifice when it comes to human lives. I think Matt has a point in supposing that in the future, the means of terrorists (and not only terrorists, but they were the ones in question here) to threaten society might reach a point where we /can't/ reasonably refuse to negotiate.
I honestly don't know what to say, except that the way I'd avoid the dilemma proposed is by never being in charge of anything even /remotely/ approaching a country - that's not a role I should be in (I am /way/ too focused on individuals). I'll moderate galleries and imageboards and games and websites, but that's different; I'll take responsibility for sorting out arguments over anime characters and porn and stuff, but I won't take responsibility for anybody else's /life/.
Post a Comment
I honestly don't know what to say, except that the way I'd avoid the dilemma proposed is by never being in charge of anything even /remotely/ approaching a country - that's not a role I should be in (I am /way/ too focused on individuals). I'll moderate galleries and imageboards and games and websites, but that's different; I'll take responsibility for sorting out arguments over anime characters and porn and stuff, but I won't take responsibility for anybody else's /life/.
# posted by : Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:04:00 pm
: Thursday, August 04, 2005 12:04:00 pm << Home
