[118823] in Cypherpunks
Re: CDR: Re: IP: Editorial: Apocalypse Soon
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steve Schear)
Fri Oct 8 17:57:43 1999
Message-Id: <4.1.19991008123633.049ac520@popserver.com21.com>
Date: Fri, 08 Oct 1999 14:39:23 -0700
To: "William H. Geiger III" <whgiii@openpgp.net>, cypherpunks@einstein.ssz.com
From: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
In-Reply-To: <199910081727.NAA19754@domains.invweb.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Reply-To: Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com>
At 12:20 PM 10/8/99 -0500, William H. Geiger III wrote:
>In <4.1.19991007125037.045b5460@popserver.com21.com>, on 10/07/99
> at 01:08 PM, Steve Schear <schear@lvcm.com> said:
>
>>None of this should come as surprise. All empires, a don't doubt for a
>>minute doubt many abroad view us as an empire, raise and fall. Technology
>>can often be a two-sided proposition. As the Goths showed Rome that its
>>great roads could be traveled both ways. so too will the smaller
>>disaffected be able to build, acquire, and use many of the same weapons
>>of mass destruction the super powers threatened one another. Only this
>>time the threat of mutually assured destruction, which seemed to temper
>>even the most bellicose during the Cold War, will be absent. It may be
>>difficult or impossible to identify the responsible parties and offer an
>>suitable/effective response.
>
>>The future is not all bleak, however, as these new weapons capabilities
>>in the hands of many will lead to the reduction in the importance and
>>capabilities of the nation states which spawned this mess, as it will
>>also lead to an aincrease in the number and influence of super-empowered
>>individuals. One might think of this process as a form of feedback,
>>tempering the virtually unchecked growth of the major powers during this
>>century.
>
>Then again the opposite may take place. If things got nasty enough once
>the dust settled we could wind up with a single world government with the
>surviving populace thanking them for it. After all if there is only one
>government then there is no need for WMD's.
I subscribe to the 'economic return of violence' approach to explain why
certain aspects of political organization are influenced by the military
technology available. Larger social organizations, I think a single world
government qualifies, are favored when there is a disproportionate economic
payback for larger military investments. This has led to the establishment
and rapid growth of nation states and their investments from the muskets
and cannons of the 15th century to the nuclear weapons of today. A change
of tide has occured with the arrival of inexpensive and lower tech WMD. If
the returns for the smaller military investments in these new WMD are
sufficient then the investors and users of the older WMD will be at a great
economic and strategic disadvantage. Unless the economics change the
advantage will stay with the smaller users and the smaller political entities.
--Steve
