From: Yan King Yin (y.k.y@lycos.com)
Date: Fri Mar 26 2004 - 21:44:09 MST
From: "mike99" <mike99@lascruces.com>
>[Islamic conquests...]
>
>But the symmetry does not end there. Some of the European powers took
>control of Arab lands during the 19th and early 20th century. But their
>control lasted less than 100 years. Today, Muslim immigration to Europe has
>reversed the tide again. While this immigration has been mostly peaceful,
>the Muslims have been extraordinarily resistant to the normal process of
>cultural assimilation in their host countries. Just look at this situation
>in France and the issue of Muslim women wearing the veil (often because
>their male family members compel them to do so). And as we have seen among
>their more extremists elements in the Madrid bombings and the attacks on New
>York and Washington before that, it has been quite easy for the terrorists
>to hide--or even gain support--among the immigrant communities of Europe and
>America. What little condemnation of terrorist acts has been voiced by those
>immigrant communities has been weak and equivocal, while (according to
>journalists and pollsters) support for anti-Western jihadists is widespread
>if quiet.
I guess immigrants are usually being economically/politically
exploited by their new hosts. In return of this, they may
have a net gain in territory. So far so good. But take into
consideration that modernized nations tend to colonize (or
indirectly exert control on) less powerful nations, I get an
impression that this exploitation is more lopsided.
I've always had a pet theory that great civilizations (ie a
particularly efficient way of organizing a society) wax and
wane, with new ones replacing old ones and inheriting their
power in a geographically contiguous manner. So this trend
may be like the succession of Egypt, Greece, Rome, Medieval
Europe, etc etc. And it always progress towards LESS densely
populated areas. Maybe this has something to do with
technology enabling a greater degree of automation...?
> [...]
>
>> If the strong is entitled to rob the weak of their
>> possesions/territory, then why does this NOT happen
>> *within* civil society?
>
>It does happen, wherever less than moral people feel that they can get away
>with it. Turn out the lights in a major American city that has a large
>population in poverty and watch the looting begin. Turn away close
>government oversight of large corporations like Enron and Worldcom and watch
>the looting begin. Primate politics.
So, within a society, exploitation is also the norm and
is only constrained by 'laws'. Why have these laws emerged?
Because of the need for economic organization. If you don't
have these laws, the economy will break down, and in the
long run the nation cannot be very competitive.
>The pattern that emerges is primate politics unrestrained by strong moral
>communities and governmental structures that can sanction and punish
>wrongdoing.
>
>If we can create a Friendly AI that consistently adheres to a superior
>morality (i.e., our best morality) even without oversight, then we may have
>a situation where humans can relax the imperatives of primate politics. We
>would quickly learn that we can no longer get away with doing things the old
>way because the FAI will not allow it.
But first we'll have to address the problem of inequality.
I'm not sure if someone would voluntarily give up their
privileges to become equal with others who previously
arn't on the same level....
YKY
____________________________________________________________
Find what you are looking for with the Lycos Yellow Pages
http://r.lycos.com/r/yp_emailfooter/http://yellowpages.lycos.com/default.asp?SRC=lycos10
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:46 MDT