elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (12/01/83)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hypothesis 1: War will result from the devotion of large resources to the preparation for war during peace time. "Preparation" is here taken to include physical (weapons systems), organizational (military establishments, plans, etc.), and political (alliances, aggressive foreign policies, etc.). Historical Demonstration: World War I among others (There are some frightening parallels between the pre-WWI situation in Europe and the current world situation). Lesson: A sufficiently elaborate and delicately poised war apparatus will eventually be triggered by miscalculation, accident, madness, etc. Hypothesis 2: War will result from refusing to make preparations (as defined above) for war and from generally conducting oneself in a very pacifistic way. Historical Demonstration: World War II among others (There are some frightening parallels between the pre-WWII policies of some European nations and those advocated by the major critics of the current policies of the West.) Lesson: Giving ones adversaries the impression that one is extremely reluctant or entirely unwilling to fight invites a disastrous miscalculation on their part. Conclusion: Murphy wins. When there is the potential for war (i.e., societies with conflicting interests and goals), there is probably no very effective way of avoiding the possibility (or even probability) of war, even though it may be in no ones real interest to fight. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- These gloomy thoughts are intended for both the hawks and doves in net land who feel *sure* they can see the path of wisdom and the folly of those with opposing viewpoints. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
cas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (12/02/83)
> Conclusion: > Murphy wins. When there is the potential for war (i.e., societies with > conflicting interests and goals), there is probably no very effective way of > avoiding the possibility (or even probability) of war, even though it may be > in no ones real interest to fight. I agree. This is exactly what I meant when I said that the nuclear weapons are an effect of our problems, not a cause. Clearly we are in competition with the Soviet Union. I think this is because of a scarcity of resources. Resources are scare (by definition) because there is not enough to go around. There is not enough to go around because there are too many people. Hence my conclusion that we should be trying to solve (and in this group discuss solutions to) the population problem rather than the nuclear weapons problem. Cliff Shaffer {we13,mcnc,seismo}!rlgvax!cvl!cas
decot@cwruecmp.UUCP (Dave Decot) (12/05/83)
A reply to Cliff Shaffer who says that the the problem to solve is that we have "too many people" on this planet, evidenced by the fact that we are competing for resources: Our problem is improper distribution of the presently available resources among an acceptable number of people. Only this week, it was deemed necessary to pay US farmers to stop producing so much milk. This adds to the list of products our goverment anti-subsidies, which already includes wheat, corn, and other grains. President Reagan was originally not going to sign this legislation, but was advised that farmers are a vocal component in almost every district, and that it might adversely affect the upcoming congressional elections. I claim that food, water, oxygen, and intellectual stimulation are the only vital resources. Other secondary resources are needed to create, process, distribute, or maintain the primary ones. However, although enough of both types of resource are sufficiently present and accessible on our planet, we have cold and hot wars. Why? Human beings, without exception, also seem to require power. This is the opportunity and capability to affect, to varying degrees, the persons and things around one. This is a motivation for every type of aggression, whether punitive or gratuitous, and also for submitting articles to Usenet. Power has obvious benefits to its holder, and tends to extend itself if applied by conscious beings. Human beings hate to be helpless, but love to be powerful. How can we deal with this problem? Is it a problem? Is it possible to grant to each person the level of power s/he desires? Is there any purpose to living if you have everything you want? Perhaps I should quit before I stray into net.philosophy or net.suicide. Dave Decot decvax!cwruecmp!decot (Decot.Case@rand-relay)
andree@uokvax.UUCP (12/07/83)
#R:astrovax:-15600:uokvax:5000037:000:1265
uokvax!andree Dec 5 23:07:00 1983
/***** uokvax:net.politics / cvl!cas / 2:16 am Dec 3, 1983 */
This is exactly what I meant when I said that the nuclear
weapons are an effect of our problems, not a cause. Clearly we
are in competition with the Soviet Union. I think this is
because of a scarcity of resources. Resources are scare (by
definition) because there is not enough to go around. There is
not enough to go around because there are too many people.
Hence my conclusion that we should be trying to solve (and in
this group discuss solutions to) the population problem rather
than the nuclear weapons problem.
Cliff Shaffer
{we13,mcnc,seismo}!rlgvax!cvl!cas
/* ---------- */
I don't agree. I don't think we have a population problem, and I
don't think resources are scarce. We have both plenty of energy
& plenty of food within easy reach, if we would only bother. There
are other net.groups for discussing these things - we might be
discussing how to actually implement those solutions.
What is scarce is FORESIGHT. This is a sympton of our problem,
namely people are silly, or that Murphy & Finagle enjoy irony
(`God is an iron').
In case you haven't noticed, the discussion on nukes IS about
solving the population problem. Or rather, avoiding a drastic
solution (-:.
<mikecas@cvl.UUCP (Cliff Shaffer) (12/09/83)
Dave Decot
kwok@cae780.UUCP (Edward C. Kwok) (12/09/83)
A Public Apology:
To all those of you whose relatives perished in our last nuclear attack on
Moscow. The attack was triggered by line 2345 of main.c in our EWS (Early
Warning System) software system.
The line should have been:
if (overwhelming_evidence == TRUE) retaliate;
instead it reads:
if (overwhelming_evidence = TRUE) retaliate;
Our company was responsible for a recent bug-fix in the program, and
might have, regretfully, introduced the bug.
We are sorry, so sorry!
A copy of this message will be sent to the new USSR government, that is, when
they have enough survivors showed up to form it.
Our deepest apology too, to XYZ Corp., the manufacturer of the computer whose
machine was blamed for the error. Let us emphasize once again, it is NOT a
machine error. We will estimate the loss of business to XYZ Corp. because
of this unfortunate event, and come up with a settlement agreeable to the
shareholders of XYZ Corp.
Again, our deepest sympathy for those who have lost their loved ones. We
have already taken measures in our software department to prevent such event
from happening again. Specifically, QC circles are now being formed amongst our
programmers.
Sincerely yours,
I. Wantcharmony,
President, LAYSIOH Corp. - "Leave America's security in our hands!"
-------------------------
Edward C. Kwok (CAE Systems)rpw3@fortune.UUCP (12/16/83)
#R:astrovax:-15600:fortune:17300011:000:385
fortune!rpw3 Dec 16 01:12:00 1983
"A bug? In your C program? But it passed 'lint', didn't it?"
"A bug? In your Ada program? But it passed the Mark 107 Theorem Prover,
didn't it?"
In both cases, "...yea, but nobody bothered to READ the program..."
Rob Warnock
UUCP: {sri-unix,amd70,hpda,harpo,ihnp4,allegra}!fortune!rpw3
DDD: (415)595-8444
USPS: Fortune Systems Corp, 101 Twin Dolphins Drive, Redwood City, CA 94065