Re: Retooling the Vision for Space Exploration

On Mar 5, 1:50 pm, simberg.interglo...@xxxxxxxxx (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Wed, 5 Mar 2008 10:14:36 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Willie.Moo...@xxxxxxxxx made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:





Now, if with the trouble in Europe in a different post you are
referring to certain riots that have occured in Paris, certain
tensions that exist today between muslims immigrants and the rest of
the society, then you are right. But, talk about something being
destroying Europe appears to be excessive.

Einar- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The definition of multi-cultural implies tolerance.  This only means
that intolerant cultures need to modify their behavior to have a small
modicum of tolerance.

It is interesting to note that the poorest among us are the most
radical in their beliefs, regardless of their culture and have the
greatest propensity toward violence.

It's only interesting to note things like that if they're true.  It is
not.

Osama bin Laden came from a very wealthy background.  None of the 911
hijackers grew up in poverty.  Extreme terrorist leaders tend to have
engineering or medical backgrounds.

A distinction must be made between leaders and the followers that make
the leaders matter at all. Engineers are not wealthy. A wealthy
background does not make one wealthy themselves. Lack of hope, denial
of what one feels is rightfully theirs, increase radicalism. There is
nothing in OBLs background that suggest the US or Saudi Arabia gave
them hope of a better more meaningful future by supporting the
existing system.

You speak as if Saudi Arabia is rich... the data says otherwise.

Saudi Arabia
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$20,700 (2007 est.)

United States
GDP - per capita (PPP):
$46,000 (2007 est.)


If a State within the United States had the same per capita income as
Saudi Arabia, it would be poorer than the poorest State in the Union.
If a State within the United States had the same literacy rate as
Saudi Arabia, it would be a national disgrace. If a State within the
United States had the same number of women in professions as Saudi
Arabia, it would be an embarassment. If a State within the United
States had the same restrictive rules on employment, investment,
voting, it would be subject to occupation by Federal Troops.

In short, it would not be surprising if a number of hot heads came
from that State disaffected by the situation and living conditions in
that State. It would not be surprising if those hot heads resonated
with a large number of people in worse condition than they.

Now, if that State within the United States also had 1/3 of all the
world's oil, we'd have to wonder wouldn't we why it was such an
economic basket case? Especially when the price of a barrel of oil
on the world markets have risen to nearly $100?

You actually have made my case sir. Its only your abject lack of
knowledge of world affairs that lets you think for a minute you made a
point here.


Poor people are far too busy trying to get by to indulge themselves in
extreme political beliefs, or carry them out by violence.  

I understand this logic. It is the logic of empire. It works only so
far and for populations so downtrodden they can't spend a minute
listening to the radio or TV, or have a coke with their kids.

This may have described the world 100 years ago. It does not describe
the world today.

A man who feels he has nothing to lose is far more likely to engage in
violence than a man who has something to lose. A man who believes he
is doomed, is far more likely to engage in violence than a man who
sees hope.

Today's poverty, as opposed to legendary poverty you imagine exists in
the world today, tends to promote violence. Someone who was very
poor and is newly rich, or someone who is very rich and is newly poor,
tend to have more radical views than those who are well off, and
slightly better off than they were before, and see the potential for
improvement through their own efforts. The population of Singapore
for example, is one of the least radical for this reason. Their
wealth has increased massively over the decades despite total lack of
resources. The wealth of Saudi Arabia has stalled, despite huge
stored wealth all around them, and income is likely to decline in the
years ahead as they reach peak output. These people naturally blame
those who benefit most from their assets than they themselves do. The
United States consumes 1/3 of all the energy in the world and its 300
million people earn over twice as much per peson as Saudi Arabia's
27.6 million who produce 1/3 of all the energy in the world at nearly
zero cost.

Poverty
does not cause terrorism,

Poverty without hope increases radicalism that's what I said.
Decline in fortunes without hope, increases radicalism. Radical
beliefs are a touchstone those who promote terror reach for to create
followers.

though in Europe, welfare seems to

Lack of hope creates frustration and anger at the powers that be -
which increases radicalism. Radicalism leads to terrorism through
radical leadership that promotes violence. Those without hope or a
positive future tend to be more violent. That is what I said.

That is what makes space development so important to us today. It
creates a positive vision for the future, and challenges everyone
everywhere to think of ways to make the world they want rather then
lash out in frustration at the world they don't want.

Also, you are attempting to make generalities out of specific cases -
which is illogical. The hi-jacker had red hair, therefore all red
headed people are suspect. Sheez. Just because the riot was started
by a college graduate, doesn't mean all the angry people in the riot
are college graduates. Same thing here.

Obviously, OBL is a special case. He's a turncoat, pure and simple.
He was an insider who came from the most well-connected families to
the halls of power within the United States and Saudi Arabia - the bin
Ladens. He was the CIA's man on the ground during the Russian
occupation of Afghanistan a Saudi James Bond. He was a freedom
fighter that was chosen and trained by the CIA and funded through his
family connections - when he was harassing Russian Hind helicopters
with Stinger missiles as a proxy for US troops he was a hero.

He turned against the US when he didn't get what he wanted, and
declared a Jihad on what he considered the Great Satan, the evil
empire. His madness would not have resonated with anyone had they
been well off and were working hard for a better future they knew
would come and didn't have any beefs against the US and the way the US
conducted itself in the world.

But he did resonate, and it ain't because everyone is crazy. Its
because some beefs are legit, and that resonates with those who feel
the weight of US presence in the world.

That doesn't make OBL right, but it wasn't his wealth that caused him
to become a turncoat. It was the lack of wealth throughout the muslim
world generally compared to what he thought was their contribution of
oil wealth, and the lack of opportunities - that is what caused crazy
messages to be picked up and acted on and cause problems.

So, the answer for the US is clear - adopt policies that spread the
wealth, and conduct itself geopolitically in ways that promote real
growth, and create a positive vision for the future while abandoning
the use of military force, intelligence operations, and misuse of
banking power as a means to maintain a disparity of income relative to
the rest of the world.
.

Quantcast