Re: Yet Another Roswell Thread

On 16 Jul, 23:43, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:

Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Jul, 14:20, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
2) Whether ideology encourages or discourages innovation.

There is an additional factor, which may be even stronger. This is
even relevant today. But according to research of poor peasants, and
simple farming communities in Africa and ellsewhere, it has been
concluted tjat for people living close to bare susbistence levels, any
attempt at a change is highly risky for them. As they have so litle,
they literally can´t afford to try out a new thing if there is any
risk of failure.

During ancient times most farming communities didn´t have a large
surplus, though as farming technology improved at a slow pace century
after century the wealth of goods being produced by farming improved.
That may explane why late stonage farming communities, and bronse age
farming communities tended to be replased rather than evolve.

One of the big changes during the industrial revolution has been the
real growth of average wealth, and real increase in opportunities.
That may mean also that innovation has become less risky. As we have
more, we can afford to loose some without threat of starvation, we can
more readily affort to take risks. That may conceivably be the single
biggest cause of the change we are speaking about.

Old farming communities while better off than ancient ones, were still
significantly porer than a typical inhabitant of a modern industrial
city. That may therefore have been a large reason for theyr relative
much greater concervatism.

I could give a very technical reply to this. In Western societies we
have endeavoured to minismise the risk to innovators whose innovations
go wrong. I could talk about bankrupcy, discharge from bankrupcy,
limited liability, public limited liability all of which serve to
reduce the risks to the individual of innovation.

There is I think a contradiction here. Societies in the past may have
been reluctant to take the risks involved in innovation, but they were
prepared to take the even bigger risks iinvolved in war. I suppose
élites go to war and subsistance farmers make economic progress. Still
if you are an élite on the wrong side you could easily finish up in
slavery if not worse.

I think though this does give some hint as to what we should do with
third world countries. We need a sharing of risk. In fact Oxfam gives
aid directly to farmers wheras goovernment aid goes through the
government where it faces a whole lot of corrupt officials.

Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Jul, 14:20, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
I think too we should divide innovation into different types.

1) Technological. This tends to be readily taken up.
2) Scientific likewise.
3) Religious and personal. This depends on whether or not we have a
free society. Whether in fact your peer group is tolerant of diversity
or not.
4) The way society is organized. This depends on the perceptions of
the ruling class.

If you apply graph theory to a Western free society, you will find
subgroups which are anything but free in their outlook. In fact the
characteristics of a jihadi is one who.

a) Clicks on poisonous sites.
b) Has a non Western graph of friends who also click on these sites.

It is also not entirely true that pre industrial societies stagnated.
They did not advance as fast as post industrial. I am English and more
familiar with English history. The Tudors (16th cent) were tyrants.
The Stuart dynasty that followed them found out that what was
acceptable in the 16th century was not acceptable in the 17th.

That will depend on the time period in question. Pre-iron age farming
communities appear to have been much less productive than iron age
farming communities. Being better off, iron-age farming communities
and later post Roman era European farming communities may have been
less concervative than the older tech. farming communities of the
ancient eras.

I was talking, remember, about the first European farming communities
which belonged to the late stone age of Europe. They predate even the
Egyptian state, even though they last into theyr era.

Naturally, the European farming commuities of the much later post
Roman era, were far superior. The reason I went so far back in time
was that, even at that very early period there were widespread
traderouts, and each year on the relevant season the farming
communities put theyr products aboard theyr river boats, moved them
over to the established trading centers where these goods were traded
with goods of the hunting/gathering tribes that then were still around
in wide areas in Europe. This situation lasted for thousands of years.

Simply demonstrating the precense of regular communication over a long
time period, yet without the transfer of ideas.

I was largely thinking of more modern communities in different parts
of the world. Are there metics that can be applied for innovation? The
very big question is how do we get societies in the Middle East, which
have a tremendous distrust of the West get themseves in a position
where they can start solving their economic problems in what I would
term a rational way.
Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Jul, 14:20, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
A society controlled in all its aspects by one man can stagnate, but
no modern society, in the Middle East or elsewhere is quite like that.

Well, in India the caste system may have discouraged change and
encouraged stagnation. In China the traditional Kon-fu-ze philosophy
may have done the same thing. In Japan the traditional ancestor
religion may have done the same.

In traditional tribal sozieties, the elders are the leaders, and the
emphasis tends to be on the importance of traditions which is tought
to the young ones.

I´m not familiar with any muslim or christian religious tenets which
may have hampered technological change. I think wealth is a factor.
Muslim societies were for a time wealthy and powerful, later when
Europe took over the trade with India and Chinga by sailing across the
oceans they fell on hard times. That may have been the real reason for
the stagnation that happened.

There are in fact no specifically religious tenets. That is to say
mainstream tenets. The reason for the deline of Islamic societies is
nott religious. It may well be to do with the fact that socieities are
controlled by one man. China had, or course, no dominant religion. In
1421 a fleet explored the world. Then the Emperor took the decision to
abandon all further exploration. Why didn't the Chinese establish a
colony in California in (say) 1425? If they had the whole history of
America would have been very different. They knew it was there and had
the technology. BTW - 1421 has been criticised by scholars on a number
of grounds. One of them being that the author cannot read original
sources, even though these were destroyed. The Emperor not only put a
stop to further exploration, he specifically destroyed all the data
that came back. You can't imagine any Western society doing that can
you?

Certainly without the need for middlemen Islamic society was in deep
trouble. It should have invested in new technology when it did have
the wealth. Lepanto was in fact a victory for new naval technology.

The wealth of European societies began to grow at the same time. That
greater wealth effect may have begun to speed up technological change
as early as the 16th. century.

Ian Parker wrote:
On 16 Jul, 14:20, eina...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
If you had AI and applied graph theory the results I think would be
illuminating and I think anyway would give an insight into the way
change might be brought about.

The only way for peace is the acceptance by both parties they have a
right to be where they are at the present time. That means
Palestinians have to give up the hope of pushing Jews into the ocean,
and also at the same time Jews have to stop pushing Palestinians off
theyr land with theyr settlement policy.

Along with the peace plan the economic situation has to be dealt with,
as far as I can see the only other way to reduce the power of the
extremist factions is to make the overall situation of the Palestinian
people less bleak.

With current policies Israel is constanty deepening the hole in which
the overall situation appears stuck. With most Palestinians being out
of work, extremists have got an allmost limitless reqruitment pool.
That has resulted in a growing instability among the Palestinans. That
reqruitment pool of out of work young people needs to be shrunk
rapitly as possible as a part of the overall peace settlement strategy
so may have any hope whatsoever of success.

I think a third thing has to happen. The Palestinians must have
economic progress. Politicians often miss the link between politics
and economics. On the military side there is one issue the Palestinian
fringe groups. The only military force on the Israeli side is the IDF.
This is a disciplined force that does what the government tells it to.
The "Swords of Islam" or some other fringe group would continue
fighting even if Fatah stopped.

This is what I was talking about when I said that you needed (in the
present state of technology) a disproportionate security response for
a small group. This wreks economics which is in fact the main basis
for a settlement.

67 borders, end of belligerency and a bit of haggling over that status
of East Jerusalem must be the components of any settlement. Barak
nearly achieved this. Basically if Israelis really thought there was a
chance of peace, the IDF would come in and demolish all settlements.
It is just not worth the price. The settlers are in fact reling on the
fact the there is no prospect of peace and so they will bag what they
can.


There must be a realization that terrorism can´t be ended in a moment.
That can only be done gradually by redusing the pool of potential
reqruits for terror, which appear primarilly to be young people with
litle hope of jobs. There must be a realization that methods that harm
the average well being of the Palestinian people are only likelly to
increase the influence of radical terrorist organizations. It will
have to be accepted that for some time afterwards there will be a
degree of terrorism, which hopefully over time will fade away.

It would be a really bad thing if al-Qaeda got a foothold among the
Palestinians. So far the different groups, the Hamas and the PLO along
with theyr respective umbrella groups, have been able to keep other
groups more or less out.

I´m actually in the minority position that think that takeve of Hamas
on the Gasa Strip may actually provite some side benefits. During the
months of struggle for control between PLO and Hamas there it really
looked like both groups were loosing control over that area, i.e. that
other perhaps even nastyer groups were gaining a foothold. Now, with a
single group in power there, they may be able to keep a lid on things.
It will though depend on what the Hamas does think to be in its
interest.

I have an opinion which is very much a minority one. One that
CERTAINLY will never be endorsed by our military friends. Hamas and
Hezbullah are controlled by Iran. So what they do is very much
influenced by what happens in Tehran. As I think I said earlier the
war in Iraq is certain (pretty well) to have one clear victor. What
will Iran do if and when she has effective control over most of the
Middle East? I personally think it might be a good thing if Israel got
one powerful negotiating partner. Would Israel be destroyed? Israel
has a very considerable nuclear arsenal and when countries have power
they start thinking realpolitikally.

In terms of realpolitik Iran wants to consolidate its hold on Iraq, is
actually far more inte5rested in Lebanon and Syria than in Israel.
Holocaust denial goes down well in the Arab street, but as soon as you
have to take decisions which could possibly lead to nuclear war you
play a different tune.

There is yet another question, Central Asia. Iran could play a role in
the stabalization of the former Soviet Union. Russia has contructive
relations.

There is a considerable irony here. Iran is the baddest of the bad in
US demonology. Yet the US military have in fact facilitated the
creation of Iranian power. This leads one to have an extreme lack of
confidence in anything they tell us.

Iran does not want terrorist groups, particularly Sunni ones. It is
far too much at risk itself. Hamas will first concentrate on
eliminating all power sources but itself in Gaza. Then it will start
of the West bank. In point of fact the quickest way to stop the
insurgency in Iraq is to let the Iranians in. An Iranian victory will
mean that Al Qaeda will certainly not be tolerated. In fact Iraq look
likes being the biggest single defeat for the Arabs AND Al Qaeda that
there has been for some time. The Saudis are extremely alarmed.
Personally I think the Hamas will now concentrate on the West Bank. In
the meantime they will prefer the Gasa Strip to be quiet. It will be
very interesting to watch what will happen next.

Clearly the gowernment of Israel is worried. Precident Bush has also
been making noises about support to the Palestinian Authority. But, I
actually doubt that will really aid the PLO in its struggle against
the Hamas. The contrary may acually prove to come true. I wonder what
will happen if the Hamas gains control over the West Bank as well.
That outcome may not be very unlikelly.

Israel and the US will be forced to negotiate with Iran.


- Ian Parker

.