[lit-ideas] Re: race to the bottom
- From: Andy Amago <aamago@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2007 10:52:23 -0500 (GMT-05:00)
I developed PTSD as a result of 9/11. I cried and cried. I remember driving
down the highway at one point listening to a story on the Trade Towers and I
was so filled with emotions. Not road rage, just overflowing grief rage, like
Eric is feeling in his desire to obliterate a billion people, 99.9997% of whom
had nothing to do with 9/11. I dealt with the emotions and it took a long time
but eventually they wore off and rationality returned. The ceremony at the one
year anniversary finally put closure on it for me. PTSD is no fun Eric, and
obliterating a billion people will not remove it for you. That is a guarantee.
In the alternative to dealing with your emotional trauma, at least consider the
details of what you're proposing. Would there be an age under which some
Muslims would be exempt, for example, the age of seven? Or would you just kill
everyone, no questions asked, newborn and up, since those Muslim children might
be mad at you when they grow up? What about the 100,000,000 Muslims in India?
Would you nuke India and Pakistan in their entirety, or would you be selective,
pull them out of their houses, line them up in front of mass graves and fire
away? Indonesia has a huge Muslim population. A nuke or two would take care
of them, nice and neat. How about Israel and Lebanon. Nuke them to make sure
all the Muslims are dead, or go the India route, fill up the pits? And where
would you put the pits that would hold a billion people? Just how would you go
about making the world safe for civilization and democracy?
Emotional problems are only made worse through violence. I like Phil's posts
on this. I would only add that people don't know why they go to war. It's
like they go into a trance, case in point the Germans and Japanese ("I was only
following orders"). Politics is an excuse, but if it really were politics,
there would be a political solution. People go to war because they're hurting
and they don't know what to do with it, the same reason they indulge in any
violence, including suicide bombing. It is, as you say, a tragic acting out.
I seriously recommend a punching bag Eric, and obliterating a billion people on
it and doing it until they're all dead. If everyone in the world did that, we
wouldn't have to imagine world peace. We'd have world peace. If our
administration had done that, we'd have gotten OBL long ago and not be where we
are in Iraq.
-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Yost <mr.eric.yost@xxxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Feb 28, 2007 4:40 PM
>To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [lit-ideas] race to the bottom
>
>Phil: However, when one lowers one's standards, the danger is that it
>soon becomes a race to the bottom of the well.
>
>
>Here's my personal race to the bottom. I was reflecting on how far I
>might go, were I a political dictator / American Hitler, to save Western
>Civilization -- libraries, museums, universities, major cities, and so
>forth -- from Muslim terrorists and extremist groups organized to
>destroy it.
>
>I soon entertained the notion that I would be willing to destroy the
>entire Muslim world. It would not be an impossible task -- it would be
>horribly easy! -- and it would answer concerns that fighting dirty would
>bring more Muslims to the cause.
>
>The USA has a little over 5,000 nuclear weapons. Russia has about 900,
>China about 200.
>
>With about thirty nuclear weapons in the 2- to 5-megaton range, the US
>could destroy all civilization from Indonesia to Egypt. With fifty
>nuclear weapons of that power, we could make sure that no traces of
>organized human life were present within the boundaries of any Muslim
>nation.
>
>That would leave us 4500+ nuclear weapons to deter any retaliative
>considerations. As hypothetical Hitler, my concern would be the effect
>of fallout on the West -- nuclear winter, increased leukemia and cancer
>in the Western fallout zones. I would have no qualms about destroying an
>entire civilization that was intent on destroying mine.
>
>So the choice would be mine and I could easily go down in history as the
>most evil person who ever lived, or as a savior who took the hard
>choice, depending on who told the story.
>
>The choice reminds me of the "baby or the Boticelli" choice, where both
>are in the canal in Venice and you can only save one. While I would opt
>for the baby in that individual choice, if it were a question of all
>art, literature, philosophy, reason, and science versus an Islamic
>theocracy forever -- destroying the entire Muslim world would be a
>no-brainer.
>
>Consideration: don't art, literature, philosophy, and reason call us to
>higher values, and don't those higher values prelude
>civilization-destroying actions in their defense? Container or contents?
>A way of life or life itself? In this post I am entertaining the notion
>that a way of life may be more important than life itself.
>
>That was part of my original question: if a higher standards lead to the
>destruction of the society holding the higher standards, is it valuable
>in itself? Or can higher standards be a form of suicide pact?
>
>
>
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
