Tell me some libertarian solutions to existential threats like nuke proliferation.

[Dionysus]

What would a libertarian solution look like to nukes, bio weapons, and environmental destruction, which seem like bona fide threats to the entire human species? If world government is not the answer, we should have some reasoned alternatives. I'm not the most well read in the libertarian, Austrian philosophies.

[krazy kaju]

There are numerous libertarian ideas that deal with these issues, but I would say that a world with nukes is a safer world. After all, who will declare war against an enemy that will use WMDs against you?

[tremendoustie]

What would a libertarian solution look like to nukes, bio weapons, and environmental destruction, which seem like bona fide threats to the entire human species? If world government is not the answer, we should have some reasoned alternatives. I'm not the most well read in the libertarian, Austrian philosophies.


I'd consider the construction of a tool which has no reasonable purpose other than agressive violence to be an agressive act (just as pointing a gun at someone would be) -- I wouldn't object at all to going in and disabling my neighbor's nuke or bioweapon.

Pollution should be taken care of by a system of restitution. That is, if your neighbor pollutes your property, he should compensate you.

[Dionysus]

I'd consider the construction of a tool which has no reasonable purpose other than agressive violence to be an agressive act (just as pointing a gun at someone would be) -- I wouldn't object at all to going in and disabling my neighbor's nuke or bioweapon.

Pollution should be taken care of by a system of restitution. That is, if your neighbor pollutes your property, he should compensate you.

What about little farmers in the rainforest areas who chop down these ancient forests on their own property, because it's in their economic interest to do so, but the sum of these little farmers is a big negative for everyone?

I'm really interested to hear these ideas, because I intuitively feel there must be some great solutions which would completely nullify any justification for world government.

EDIT: And krazy kaju, how do you rid the world of nukes in the absence of an international framework? Do you have to get every single nation to voluntarily agree? We see how hard it is to get people to agree to something on this forum, where everyone has a similar political outlook!

EDIT2: One of the things which unnerves me about the NWO, is that I could envision a bunch of rational scientists deciding that the best way to ensure the human species survival was to kill 99 percent of humans and have an elite with bases underground. Only scientists could come up with that sort of thing. Or perhaps they decided that a totalitarian surveillance state was necessary in the interim to mitigate these existential threats. After all, with tyranny, there is hope, whereas with total extinction, everything is a moot point.

[Met Income]

What about little farmers in the rainforest areas who chop down these ancient forests on their own property, because it's in their economic interest to do so, but the sum of these little farmers is a big negative for everyone?

I'm really interested to hear these ideas, because I intuitively feel there must be some great solutions which would completely nullify any justification for world government.

It's their property, therefore, they have the right to chop down their trees. If they are smart owners, they will re-plant trees.

Ironically, state owned lands have serious moral hazard issues with environmentalism. Politicians will use the land to benefit themselves in the short-term (ie selling resources for income or political favors to special interest groups) while neglecting the long-term since they won't be in power in the distant future.

[krazy kaju]

What about little farmers in the rainforest areas who chop down these ancient forests on their own property, because it's in their economic interest to do so, but the sum of these little farmers is a big negative for everyone?

I'm really interested to hear these ideas, because I intuitively feel there must be some great solutions which would completely nullify any justification for world government.

First off, the Amazon is government property, which is why nobody has any interests in saving it. If it were private property, then private logging companies would have an incentive to replant vegetation, in order to have a continuing profit. This is also why so much of the Amazon is burned, since illegal farmers/herders have no incentive to save any of the forest when it's "other peoples' land."

Secondly, what kind of "enormous benefit" does the Amazon provide? It's a giant swath of unused, unproductive land. Some of it would remain intact under a system of private property rights, due to local tribes keeping their land and private interests preserving the forests, but I believe it would be best for humanity as a whole if we allowed the overpopulated cities of Brazil to populate parts of the Amazon. The whole thing laying idle as it is right now is a huge waste of natural resources that could be used for the betterment of society.

[Met Income]

\

EDIT: And krazy kaju, how do you rid the world of nukes in the absence of an international framework? Do you have to get every single nation to voluntarily agree? We see how hard it is to get people to agree to something on this forum, where everyone has a similar political outlook!

You can't rid the world of nukes. Just like you can't rid the world of guns. If a burglar thinks I have a gun, he is less likely to rob me.

[Dionysus]

First off, the Amazon is government property, which is why nobody has any interests in saving it. If it were private property, then private logging companies would have an incentive to replant vegetation, in order to have a continuing profit. This is also why so much of the Amazon is burned, since illegal farmers/herders have no incentive to save any of the forest when it's "other peoples' land."

Secondly, what kind of "enormous benefit" does the Amazon provide? It's a giant swath of unused, unproductive land. Some of it would remain intact under a system of private property rights, due to local tribes keeping their land and private interests preserving the forests, but I believe it would be best for humanity as a whole if we allowed the overpopulated cities of Brazil to populate parts of the Amazon. The whole thing laying idle as it is right now is a huge waste of natural resources that could be used for the betterment of society.

Interesting. One could argue that the Amazon's biodiversity is a positive, even in a pragmatic sense, since many medicines are plant derived and there are many unknown species there. Plus it does help cool the Earth. Though I am very skeptical of man made global warming. Anyway, keep the thoughts coming. I'll be checking them out.

[krazy kaju]

And krazy kaju, how do you rid the world of nukes in the absence of an international framework? Do you have to get every single nation to voluntarily agree? We see how hard it is to get people to agree to something on this forum, where everyone has a similar political outlook!

I'm not arguing at all that we get rid of nukes. I'm arguing that the proliferation of nukes is a good thing. We haven't had a world war since nuclear weaponry was developed. Wonder why? It had something to do with the USA, the USSR, and the PRC all realizing that if they waged a large-scale war against each other, they would destroy each other. Ever hear of MAD (mutually assured destruction) in any of your social studies classes in high school or college?

Here's a short list of countries that we know that have nukes: USA, PRC, Russia, France, UK. No country is seriously considering waging a serious, large scale war against any of these countries since they know the result.

Hence, more weaponry = less war. Less war is good.

[krazy kaju]

Interesting. One could argue that the Amazon's biodiversity is a positive, even in a pragmatic sense, since many medicines are plant derived and there are many unknown species there. Plus it does help cool the Earth. Though I am very skeptical of man made global warming. Anyway, keep the thoughts coming. I'll be checking them out.

If biodiversity is a positive, then there surely would be a profit motive to keep it. Pharma companies, for example, would want to buy up some of the jungle to study it. Hippie nature tourists, such as myself, would probably enjoy visiting a for-profit nature preserve. Local tribes would probably also keep their areas development-free. But, for the most part, as I've said before, most of the Amazon is economic waste - it's simply land that is not being used to increase the well-being of humanity. Even if we took a tiny percentage of the Amazon rainforest and turned it into productive land, we could expand production of a multum of products and increase the prosperity of poverty-stricken Brazilians.

[malkusm]

Here's a short list of countries that we know that have nukes: USA, PRC, Russia, France, UK. No country is seriously considering waging a serious, large scale war against any of these countries since they know the result.

Hence, more weaponry = less war. Less war is good.

In the same way that more gun owners = less crime. ;)

[Dionysus]

I'm not arguing at all that we get rid of nukes. I'm arguing that the proliferation of nukes is a good thing. We haven't had a world war since nuclear weaponry was developed. Wonder why? It had something to do with the USA, the USSR, and the PRC all realizing that if they waged a large-scale war against each other, they would destroy each other. Ever hear of MAD (mutually assured destruction) in any of your social studies classes in high school or college?

Here's a short list of countries that we know that have nukes: USA, PRC, Russia, France, UK. No country is seriously considering waging a serious, large scale war against any of these countries since they know the result.

Hence, more weaponry = less war. Less war is good.

Assuming that no madman is ever able to gain control of any country's nukes. There are always revolutions, etc. Also, assuming you trust the systems controlling these weapons to never ever malfunction. A particle from the sun can flip a memory bit in a computer, really. There can never be a mistake with these things. Having a world bristling with nukes just makes it seem inevitable that there will be an unusual event.

It's like if I have a magic button that destroys 1 million people every time I press it. No one will mess with me, true, but I might go insane. Though it's unlikely that one insane person will ever be able to control the institutions that guard nuclear weapons. But then you want a magic button cause you see how badass it is. Pretty soon these buttons are everywhere. And then, you just have to figure that someone's button is going to get pressed sometime.

[krazy kaju]

Assuming that no madman is ever able to gain control of any country's nukes.

Stalin and Brezhnev were both madmen, yet somehow even they had enough rationality to realize that a full-out war would destroy them.


There are always revolutions, etc. Also, assuming you trust the systems controlling these weapons to never ever malfunction. There can never be a mistake with these things. Having a world bristling with nukes just makes it seem inevitable that there will be an unusual event.

It's like if I have a magic button that destroys 1 million people every time I press it. No one will mess with me, true, but I might go insane. Though it's unlikely that one insane person will ever be able to control the institutions that guard nuclear weapons. But then you want a magic button cause you see how badass it is. Pretty soon these buttons are everywhere. And then, you just have to figure that someone's button is going to get pressed sometime.

So you're saying that everyone will have nuclear weaponry? :p

The thing is that the world is already full with nukes in the USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, the UK, France, and India, yet somehow there haven't been any accidents, despite the fact that at least three of those countries are perceived to be dangerously unstable.

If you really want to stop nuclear proliferation, then you would have to wage war against many, many countries and cause more destruction then otherwise. The fact that Pakistan and India haven't had a full-out war of annexation should be enough evidence for anyone that nuclear proliferation will bring peace to the world.

Of course, some might straw-man me and say that I'm in favor of allowing Al Qaeda to have nuclear weapons. This obviously isn't the case, as Al Qaeda is an organization that should be fought with anyway. They are our enemy, thus, we should not allow them to have nuclear weapons. That said, I don't see why we should be fighting against "legitimate" governments having nuclear weapons.

[TinCanToNA]

Stalin and Brezhnev were both madmen, yet somehow even they had enough rationality to realize that a full-out war would destroy them.



So you're saying that everyone will have nuclear weaponry? :p

The thing is that the world is already full with nukes in the USA, Russia, China, Pakistan, the UK, France, and India, yet somehow there haven't been any accidents, despite the fact that at least three of those countries are perceived to be dangerously unstable.

If you really want to stop nuclear proliferation, then you would have to wage war against many, many countries and cause more destruction then otherwise. The fact that Pakistan and India haven't had a full-out war of annexation should be enough evidence for anyone that nuclear proliferation will bring peace to the world.

Of course, some might straw-man me and say that I'm in favor of allowing Al Qaeda to have nuclear weapons. This obviously isn't the case, as Al Qaeda is an organization that should be fought with anyway. They are our enemy, thus, we should not allow them to have nuclear weapons. That said, I don't see why we should be fighting against "legitimate" governments having nuclear weapons.

I would respectfully disagree with the generalizations you are making with regards to nuclear weapons. The Cold War got very hot during the proxy wars between the US and USSR, even if neither side directly fought the other. Wars of genocide, "ethnic cleansing" and etc. often go on unfettered, just as they have in the past.

Instead of saying that the world is safer as more nations possess nuclear weapons, I would contend that likelihood of their use is increases slightly as more and more nations possess them, in a somewhat similar parallel to how more guns lead to a safer society, but also lead to increased likelihood of "bad actors" to use guns, instead of knives or whatnot.

That doesn't mean that I think disarmament is a workable solution, or even desirable. However, that the world has seen one nuclear nation break up without incident is a lucky thing, in my opinion--how many times must the dice be rolled like that before something serious happens?

[krazy kaju]

^ That's exactly my point though. The Cold War was fought via proxy wars - Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. Now compare that to what probably would have happened in a non-nuclear world: WWIII played out in Europe (again), as Soviet forces move Westward into the Lowlands, France, Italy, Spain... THAT would have been massive destruction and death on all levels.

[Dionysus]

It's hard to imagine we've seen all the possibilities of nukes in only 65 years of coexistence with them. That's hardly a long time by standards of man's development. It may be that the galactic average that an intelligent species lives with nukes before destroying themselves is 327 years.

[TinCanToNA]

Dionysus hits the nail on the head, I think. What is the ultimate price for "lessened wars" now? At present, it is the the seemingly permanent burden of possessing a form of Armageddon. The parallel to the Fed's low interest rates sowing the seeds for immediate bubble prosperity and future turmoil comes to mind.

[Mini-Me]

To be perfectly honest, I don't think there is a perfect solution to the existential threat of WMD's besides "diversification," and by that, I mean colonizing places other than Earth ASAP.

Pandora's Box has already been opened, and just like when it comes to guns, you're never going to eliminate nukes entirely. I'd love to see a world without existential threats, but it's just impossible, at least given the current status quo of nation-states. (A one world government would keep them too of course, so they could deal with "burgeoning cities of terrorists" or whatnot. :rolleyes: ) Whether we're dealing with a thousand or a trillion, nukes are unfortunately here to stay. Their risk profile is VERY different from that of guns in three major senses though, and it strongly suggests we're better off keeping nuke proliferation to a minimum:
A madman can kill a LOT more people (perhaps everyone, if it's a madman with a certain amount of power) without them having a fighting chance. The more nukes there are, the more likely they are to fall into the hands of someone with that kind of disposition. This means that multiplying the number of nukes in circulation really does increase the chance of an incident...and not just an incident, but a particularly horrific incident.
They can essentially only be wielded by collectivists, because they cause too much "collateral damage" to target deserving/guilty parties individually. They can be used for national defense, but they cannot really be used for "self-defense" if we consider the individual lives of those killed by their necessarily indiscriminate usage.
Unlike when it comes to guns (in the event of gun confiscation, etc.), governments cannot exactly use their current monopoly on nukes as a means of intimidating their own populace into submission. I mean, what are they going to do, kill everyone? Of course, a madman could very well do this (risk number 1 above), but a political establishment bent on long-term dominance cannot.
As different as they are from guns though, they do share that one pesky thing in common: Pandora's Box has already been opened, and they already exist. As long as nation-states continue to exist, that seems unlikely to change, and short of moving towards a stateless world and changing paradigms altogether,* our only option is continued diplomacy between governments. Mutually-assured destruction is a sound strategy when everyone involved is at least sane, not suicidal, and/or not bent on annihilating the human race...but I think the time is passing when we can really consider that a fair assumption. ;) Besides, there are simply so many nukes around now anyway that we don't need nearly this many for mutually assured destruction to remain a viable war deterrent among "sane" nations.

Ultimately, I think diplomacy geared towards gradual disarmament is the best way to go, given our current options. Granted, no nuclear-equipped country is going to destroy their entire stock. Plus, mutual disarmament is difficult to verify (whatever "mutual" disarmament means in a multilateral world), due to deception and everyone wanting aces up their sleeves. Still, I think it would be in everyone's best interests for major nuclear-equipped countries - especially the US and Russia - to scale back. Reducing the numbers involved reduces the chance of such a highly dangerous (and normally highly controlled) weapon getting into the hands of a rogue suicidal, genocidal, or omnicidal maniac, and it significantly reduces the chances of MANY of them reaching such hands. In addition, reducing the numbers involved would help stem the "me too" attitude of third world nations wanting to be respected by hostile empires...though a more humble foreign policy would play an even larger role here. Finally, in the event of dickhead politicians and insane hardass generals losing their tempers and shooting nukes at each other, reducing the numbers involved would somewhat decrease the chances of armageddon. ;) That said, as much as we should keep nuke proliferation to a minimum, this is not something we should pursue "at all costs," such as in the case of Iran; being too "aggressive" on this kind of issue ironically makes conflict and/or catastrophe more likely.

(As another brief argument for disarmament over "proliferation as a war deterrent," it's worth considering the "Georgia Guidestones" angle: If there are "some people" who might not be averse to killing around 90% of the people on Earth through disease, famine, and war...well, I'm not sure if we can count on them genuinely caring about the environment enough to deter them from using nukes to achieve that end.)

Still, the whole WMD problem is going to be a very delicate situation for the human race for a long time to come, and the existential nature of the problem may only be solved once we branch out from this one single planet where we could be so easily annihilated all at once.

*I do think it's worth going on a tangent to address the an-cap aspects to this though. Some an-caps argue that weapons are weapons, and anyone should be allowed to possess a nuke for the same reasons anyone should be allowed to possess a gun. Personally, I think this is insane due to my #2 point above, that nukes can ONLY be wielded indiscriminately by collectivists. Essentially, in an an-cap society, if any person or organization within "striking range" had a nuke, I'd consider it a loaded gun pointed at my head...and not just my head, but many other people's heads. (That is unless, of course, the organization had the nuke for obviously academic or historic reasons and reasonably assured people they were taking suitable precautions. ;)) In other words, confiscating and destroying such a weapon could be legitimately considered an act of self-defense by someone who believed their life to be in serious danger. Frankly, I think a lot of people - MOST people, really - would likely see it my way. In a pipe-dream world without any real empires (or "rogue states") to fear, I believe very few would continue to see a need for nuclear weapons...and in such a pipe-dream world, a very real possibility might exist of actually phasing them out of existence. This isn't likely to happen anytime soon though, of course. Still, I think it was worth addressing, because it's really the only way I could actually imagine a "world without nukes" occurring, at least prior to catastrophe and three-headed seamonkeys rebuilding civilization.

[Dionysus]

Nice post Mini-Me. The only solutions I can think of are pretty horrific. The least horrific would be letting most people's daily life slowly revert to a hunter-gather, low-tech society while the global scientific elite maintained a modern mode of living to figure out the problem, but with genetic engineering coming into understanding, they would probably engineer themselves into another more advanced species. This one could actually benefit the lower and middle classes spiritually and emotionally. They're lives would be less complicated and more free, though more ignorant.

Or, you could cull the world's population of the leftmost 99.99% of the bell curve and be left with an average human of intelligence 145+ and a much smaller human society which would be least likely to annihilate themselves with weapons. Weapons could even be destroyed at this stage, with no individual being able to re-develop such a thing undetected. This seems easier than bringing up the global population, assuming sheer intelligence and perhaps a few other targeted traits, such as empathy, would prevent wars. The most humane technique to cull would be a birth rate under 2 indefinitely.

Definitely space exploration is a component, but probably a relatively small one for perhaps 75 years. The only solutions that are very good, if the objective is to bring the chances as close to zero as possible with no further considerations, are very radical. Perhaps the reluctance to deal with such drastic policies would lead to a compromise in methods and a less aggressive approach to minimizing the likelihood. Perhaps things like human dignity are weighted.

It's easier to listen to T McKenna wax poetic on his crazy theories
YouTube - Terence McKenna - Psychedelic Society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp5IlodrPj4)

[krazy kaju]

Dionysus hits the nail on the head, I think. What is the ultimate price for "lessened wars" now? At present, it is the the seemingly permanent burden of possessing a form of Armageddon.

So you believe in nuclear non-proliferation? Well the only way to ensure that there is no nuclear Armageddon is to force everyone to abandon nukes, and the only way you will get everyone to do so at once is by simultaneously forcing everyone to disband their nukes... so basically you would have to wage a world war against all powers who own nukes. The result would be, guess what? Nuclear Armageddon.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Nice post Mini-Me. The only solutions I can think of are pretty horrific. The least horrific would be letting most people's daily life slowly revert to a hunter-gather, low-tech society while the global scientific elite maintained a modern mode of living to figure out the problem, but with genetic engineering coming into understanding, they would probably engineer themselves into another more advanced species. This one could actually benefit the lower and middle classes spiritually and emotionally. They're lives would be less complicated and more free, though more ignorant.

Or, you could cull the world's population of the leftmost 99.99% of the bell curve and be left with an average human of intelligence 145+ and a much smaller human society which would be least likely to annihilate themselves with weapons. Weapons could even be destroyed at this stage, with no individual being able to re-develop such a thing undetected. This seems easier than bringing up the global population, assuming sheer intelligence and perhaps a few other targeted traits, such as empathy, would prevent wars. The most humane technique to cull would be a birth rate under 2 indefinitely.

Definitely space exploration is a component, but probably a relatively small one for perhaps 75 years. The only solutions that are very good, if the objective is to bring the chances as close to zero as possible with no further considerations, are very radical. Perhaps the reluctance to deal with such drastic policies would lead to a compromise in methods and a less aggressive approach to minimizing the likelihood. Perhaps things like human dignity are weighted.

You are not listening to Krazy, and neither are any other posters here. You are fostered in a fear of a "rogue". I think you all are forgetting one thing. Humans above all favor self-preservation. This is the ultimate self-interest. What needs to happen, is not the orthodoxy view to reduce Nuclear proliferation, but instead I would contend would be to if we must have the State, to (Not directly, but I'm not adverse to selling/trading, etc.) proliferate it to as many Nations as possible.

Nuclear weapons are very costly to produce, as such in a generally An-Cap world, Nukes would diminish, or at the least would be held via militia.

Besides, nukes are not that easy to detonate.

[krazy kaju]

My main point is that more nukes mean less people will wage total war, since that total war will more likely mean total destruction for themselves. The probability of misfirings of nukes is incredibly low on top of that. Just think about it: not only have none of us ever heard of a misfiring of a missile, but you have to arm a nuclear weapon in order to actually use it in the first place. Nukes have been dropped before in suburban America (believe it or not) on accident, but guess what? Nothing particular happened, since those nukes were accidentally dropped but they weren't armed. Moreover, most people who operate nuclear weaponry are deathly scared of even purposefully activating it. When the US government ran tests on personnel running nuclear missile sites to see if they would actually launch the missiles if ordered to do so, many disobeyed direct orders from generals and didn't even launch their missiles.

Add on top of this what it would take to actually disarm the world of nukes. First of all, "nuclear nonproliferation" is bullshit, since we wouldn't want to concentrate the power to destroy the world in just a few countries (after all, wouldn't that make them global tyrannies?). So we would definitely have to disarm all nations at once of nukes. But is this even possible? Wouldn't it require nothing short of WWIII to completely disarm all countries of nukes?

[Mini-Me]

Nice post Mini-Me. The only solutions I can think of are pretty horrific. The least horrific would be letting most people's daily life slowly revert to a hunter-gather, low-tech society while the global scientific elite maintained a modern mode of living to figure out the problem, but with genetic engineering coming into understanding, they would probably engineer themselves into another more advanced species. This one could actually benefit the lower and middle classes spiritually and emotionally. They're lives would be less complicated and more free, though more ignorant.
The day we can trust any "global elite" to be benevolent (let alone competent) is the day Santa Claus will come and tell them they're being silly for not just meeting secretly on Christmas morning and destroying their nukes together in one fell swoop...and the same day that they'd agree and do exactly that. ;) A more likely scenario is that, if the rest of us were ever stupid enough to trade in our liberty for such "security," the global elite would get into a position where they could threaten entire continents with annihilation if a single person acted up...kind of like a cruel gym teacher punishing the whole class.



Or, you could cull the world's population of the leftmost 99.99% of the bell curve and be left with an average human of intelligence 145+ and a much smaller human society which would be least likely to annihilate themselves with weapons. Weapons could even be destroyed at this stage, with no individual being able to re-develop such a thing undetected. This seems easier than bringing up the global population, assuming sheer intelligence and perhaps a few other targeted traits, such as empathy, would prevent wars. The most humane technique to cull would be a birth rate under 2 indefinitely.
Assuming enacting such a plan wouldn't trigger armageddon anyway, the kind of people who would forcibly "cull" 99.99% of the world's population - regardless of IQ - probably don't score too high on the empathy scale. ;) You'll probably have plenty of self-absorbed and totally warped narcissists around with wet dreams of being the last human ever to live or something. In addition, remember that people with extremely high IQ's are extraordinarily independent thinkers. Left unchecked, geniuses can sometimes get "lost" in their minds to the point of becoming, err, insane.

The notion of existential threats clearly does something ugly to the human consciousness that makes us even dream up such fundamentally horrific and crazy things. The overwhelming fear "justifies" and demands "any" (every possible) degree of coercively imposed self-sacrifice...which is exactly why so many play up the fear angle of things like global warming as a means of achieving power over others. Report from Iron Mountain, right?

Aside from being totally anathema to the ideals of individual liberty, the above "ideas" are positively horrific, though there are some - the worst among all human beings, I should add - who I'm sure would love for an excuse to implement them. If we ever allowed some arrogant jerkoffs to get away with anything so heartless as either of the above plans, that would truly say something about just how few of us had a working conscience ourselves and just how few of us were in any way concerned about individual human life and liberty. Really, if we are so miserable a species that enough of us would go along with something horrific, we would probably deserve extinction, and nuclear holocaust would be preferable.

In other words...


Definitely space exploration is a component, but probably a relatively small one for perhaps 75 years. The only solutions that are very good, if the objective is to bring the chances as close to zero as possible with no further considerations, are very radical. Perhaps the reluctance to deal with such drastic policies would lead to a compromise in methods and a less aggressive approach to minimizing the likelihood. Perhaps things like human dignity are weighted.
...existential threats are a grave danger and a serious problem, but if we let them bring out the very worst of human nature, we will be left with very little worth preserving. If we pursue radical (as in horrific, not as in creative) ways to minimize our chances of annihilation at all costs, we will trade an unknown nonzero chance of complete tragedy for a 100% chance of almost complete tragedy. I'd rather fight for a world worth fighting for, one which avoids either tremendous tragedy and values individual dignity.

This topic reminds me of the Watchmen graphic novel. Have you ever read it?

[Mini-Me]

My main point is that more nukes mean less people will wage total war, since that total war will more likely mean total destruction for themselves.
I think we're talking about two different things here. I would agree that more countries having nukes means less people will wage total war, but that's not the same thing as "more nukes." If the existing nuclear powers were to expand their stockpiles - which are already enough to destroy humankind - by three or four orders of magnitude, that would do nothing to stem war. At best, it would be a pissing match, and at worst, dime-a-dozen nukes would in fact make the "rogue madman" problem more likely. (In other words, I'm NOT saying that Iran having a nuke is a problem. I'm saying it's a problem if everyone has so many nukes that they become more easily misplaced, more likely to destroy the world fifty times over rather than once or twice over, etc.) In order words, a more balanced distribution of nukes might be helpful, but "more nukes" in general would not be.

The probability of misfirings of nukes is incredibly low on top of that. Just think about it: not only have none of us ever heard of a misfiring of a missile, but you have to arm a nuclear weapon in order to actually use it in the first place. Nukes have been dropped before in suburban America (believe it or not) on accident, but guess what? Nothing particular happened, since those nukes were accidentally dropped but they weren't armed. Moreover, most people who operate nuclear weaponry are deathly scared of even purposefully activating it. When the US government ran tests on personnel running nuclear missile sites to see if they would actually launch the missiles if ordered to do so, many disobeyed direct orders from generals and didn't even launch their missiles.
That's because MOST people aren't crazy. That doesn't mean nobody's crazy. ;)



Add on top of this what it would take to actually disarm the world of nukes. First of all, "nuclear nonproliferation" is bullshit, since we wouldn't want to concentrate the power to destroy the world in just a few countries (after all, wouldn't that make them global tyrannies?). So we would definitely have to disarm all nations at once of nukes. But is this even possible? Wouldn't it require nothing short of WWIII to completely disarm all countries of nukes?

Of course, and I agree. When I say I favor gradual disarmament, I'm talking about something different from you. I agree with you that we cannot hope to completely disarm every nation, and we cannot even hope to disarm ANY nation of every last nuke. No country is going to willingly go from being a nuclear power back to being a mere pawn in a game between remaining nuclear powers. I also agree with you on the foolishness of fighting to keep nuclear power concentrated in just a few countries and out of the hands of the weaker ones.

When I say I favor gradual disarmament, I'm talking about large countries (the US and Russia, etc.) mutually scaling back their excessive stockpiles, for all the reasons I mentioned in the other post (e.g. we already have way more than we need for mere mutually assured destruction, etc.).

[Dionysus]

Wow, libertarians are some smart people.

I have read Watchman. That's funny, because I've been thinking that too. It reminded me of the Bulletin website, "It is 5 Minutes to Midnight"
http://www.thebulletin.org/

I saw an awesome Alan Moore interview in a Netflix movie. He's crazy awesome. He does wear finger armor sometimes, so be warned. Through the magic of internet...
YouTube - Alan Moore talks - 01 - V For Vendetta (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7ehbE1vc0)

[axiomata]

First off, the Amazon is government property, which is why nobody has any interests in saving it. If it were private property, then private logging companies would have an incentive to replant vegetation, in order to have a continuing profit. This is also why so much of the Amazon is burned, since illegal farmers/herders have no incentive to save any of the forest when it's "other peoples' land."

Secondly, what kind of "enormous benefit" does the Amazon provide? It's a giant swath of unused, unproductive land. Some of it would remain intact under a system of private property rights, due to local tribes keeping their land and private interests preserving the forests, but I believe it would be best for humanity as a whole if we allowed the overpopulated cities of Brazil to populate parts of the Amazon. The whole thing laying idle as it is right now is a huge waste of natural resources that could be used for the betterment of society.
Until recently I thought the only solution to the classic "Tragedy of the Commons" problems was privatization. After studying the work that Elinor Ostrom did to earn the Nobel this year I do not think privatization is the only solution.

In some situations where there are technical hurdles to privatization, there can be success keeping the public property if an only if the users of that property are able to organize a system of rules and enforcement.

I wrote a paper on it if anyone is interested.

That said, rainforest deforestation is definitely an example where private property works. Things like fisheries, aquifers etc., the path to privatization is much more difficult, and Ostrom's voluntary communal ownership with bottom-up well-defined rules might be more efficient.

[constituent]

In some situations where there are technical hurdles to privatization, there can be success keeping the public property if an only if the users of that property are able to organize a system of rules and enforcement.

for an interesting take on that system of management...

The Trap - 2 - The Lonely Robot (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1087742888040457650&ei=vv0gS_HUJJPaqwLswfWZAw&q=the+lonely+robot)

Enjoy. :)

[TinCanToNA]

So you believe in nuclear non-proliferation? Well the only way to ensure that there is no nuclear Armageddon is to force everyone to abandon nukes, and the only way you will get everyone to do so at once is by simultaneously forcing everyone to disband their nukes... so basically you would have to wage a world war against all powers who own nukes. The result would be, guess what? Nuclear Armageddon.

That is a straw-man fallacy, and as such it is not what I am saying. The answer is much closer to the following:
1) No new nuclear powers.
2) Cross your fucking fingers that existing ones never use them.

That's all you can do, realistically.

[constituent]

It's kinda irrelevant.

As time progresses, the knowledge base required for engineering projects such as nuclear power/weapons will have expanded to a degree that the information once considered cutting edge (WMD design, delivery, etc.) will come to be viewed as precursory.

In time, as people develop a broader understanding of the physics of creation/destruction, you will see that pretending you can stop people from having nuclear weapons is merely a dangerous charade.

A boogeyman. An excuse.

[constituent]

http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/3995009/description.html

See what I mean?

[Bucjason]

Continue perfecting the missile defense program, and then let these morons proliferate all the missiles they want. It won't matter to us, because we can just shoot the fuckers out of the sky at will...

[jmdrake]

A particle from the sun can flip a memory bit in a computer, really

Have you ever heard of radiation hardened chips? It's far more likely that a chip would be burned out from a nuke EMP than it is that "sun particles" would "flip a bit". The same chips that have been hardened to protect against EMP would also protect against sun particles. Besides even if a bit got flipped there are ways to find and/or correct that. Checksum, cyclic redundancy checks, self correcting code etc.

[Mini-Me]

Continue perfecting the missile defense program, and then let these morons proliferate all the missiles they want. It won't matter to us, because we can just shoot the fuckers out of the sky at will...

Assuming a missile defense program would reliably work against airborne nukes (and it'd still be useless against other delivery methods), erecting it unilaterally would drastically upset the geopolitical balance and remove the "mutual[ly]" from "mutually assured destruction." While this may sound good to you at the outset as an American thinking about defense, you have to keep in mind that other countries may view it through the lens of aggressive US imperialism and panic. In their minds, the moment the US becomes invincible is the moment the US can attack anyone unprovoked without fear of effective retaliation, and our government's recent foreign policy track record of doing whatever it can get away with supports this cynical position. In order to prevent being dominated, other countries could very well panic and go to war with us before work on the shield is completed.

In short, carelessly erecting an "invincibility shield" while everyone else is scared shitless of its implications is the very kind of foreign policy screwup that could conceivably push us to war (nuclear war), because other countries can view it as their "last chance" to attack before being forcefully dominated by the US forever. Realistically, the only way for a missile shield to be a net positive for national defense is if other nuclear powers are "okay" with it being erected, thereby avoiding the risk of preemptive nuclear war. The only way I can see other countries being okay with it is if we share our shield technology with them so they can simultaneously build a shield, which should drastically reduce the airborne nuclear threat [to the species]...assuming the shield actually works, 60% of the time, every time. ;) Besides, this kind of worldwide - or nearly worldwide - missile shield is still the only way to defend the even the US alone from airborne nukes anyway...because if two other nuclear powers like India and Pakistan go to war with each other and fire enough nukes in a shieldless area, our own missile shield isn't going to do jack against a nuclear winter.

[rpfan2008]

Here's a short list of countries that we know that have nukes: USA, PRC, Russia, France, UK. No country is seriously considering waging a serious, large scale war against any of these countries since they know the result.


Usually Americans use the word China to describe it.

But in some other region of the world PRC is the chosen word for it, I wonder if you are from one of those places.


like bus--lorry etc.

[apropos]

You are fostered in a fear of a "rogue". I think you all are forgetting one thing. Humans above all favor self-preservation. This is the ultimate self-interest.

This is simply not true.

The existence of suicide bombers (and less dramatically, the existence of those who willing take their own lives every year) negates your statement. Mere survival is not necessarily everyone's primary goal. There are those, for example, who want to obtain martyrdom, sacrificing their lives for a greater reward in the afterlife.


Besides, nukes are not that easy to detonate.

A nuke is just conventional explosives wrapped around plutonium. The difficulty is in the manufacture, not the detonation, of the bomb. It could certainly be designed to be "user-friendly".

[pcosmar]

Existential Threat ? :confused:

I am not worried about a few nukes or any other weapons.
I believe that Social Engineers, Eugenicists, and Globalists in general are are a greater existential threat.
Oh yeah, and busybodies too.

[rpfan2008]

A nuke is just conventional explosives wrapped around plutonium. The difficulty is in the manufacture, not the detonation, of the bomb.


Like lighting a cracker?

Detonation of a nuke is fairly difficult task as it involves many security locks, codes like biometrics etc etc.

I think you know it very well this is why you decided to add this part.


It could certainly be designed to be "user-friendly".

[apropos]

Detonation of a nuke is fairly difficult task as it involves many security locks, codes like biometrics etc etc.

Are these things required components of a nuclear weapon? No. And if not required, then it is a merely a question of design. I imagine non-state actors would not be so concerned with chain-of-command safety measures.

[rpfan2008]

Are these things required components of a nuclear weapon? No. And if not required, then it is a merely a question of design.

Whoever designed a nuke I believe it's impossible that they would miss this thought.


Do you know how many of former USSR nukes are missing? I think it's more likely that one of those nukes might end up in extremists hands.





[QUOTE] I imagine non-state actors would not be so concerned with chain-of-command safety measures.

Like Pakistan nukes? eh??

[Dionysus]

It appears they want to cull the population with a less than 2 birth rate. If you had a one child policy, there would still be people who had zero children, and assuming good enforcement and cultural engineering, minimizing the people who cheated the law, the birth rate would be less than 1 per 2.

That's a dramatic shift in a few generations.

1000000
500000
250000
125000
62500
31250 apprx 3% of starting policy

Starting with 6 billion, you'd be at 180 million in the same amount of generations. Less than half the US population, and no one else.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

[Mini-Me]

It appears they want to cull the population with a less than 2 birth rate. If you had a one child policy, there would still be people who had zero children, and assuming good enforcement and cultural engineering, minimizing the people who cheated the law, the birth rate would be less than 1 per 2.

That's a dramatic shift in a few generations.

1000000
500000
250000
125000
62500
31250 apprx 3% of starting policy

Starting with 6 billion, you'd be at 180 million in the same amount of generations. Less than half the US population, and no one else.


http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

If they even try China-style population control in the USA, I think they're going to be in for a rude awakening.

[awake]

What would a libertarian solution look like to nukes, bio weapons, and environmental destruction, which seem like bona fide threats to the entire human species? If world government is not the answer, we should have some reasoned alternatives. I'm not the most well read in the libertarian, Austrian philosophies.

Government produced all of the problems you have listed. They achieved most of it through paper money, state control of science and political plutocracy. The solution is undoing the state, freeing people from government controlled money and secession from centralization schemes.

Bio/ Nuclear weapons problem - separate science and governmental funding by taxes and inflation. Nuclear weapons are government creations of mass death - a small minority of control freaks bent on force and conquest funded them into existance.

Environment- allow private ownership of everything, it will get looked after and its value managed and preserved not to mentioned exchanged. If damages from one owners property on another can be proved before independent courts and judgeships then payment of damages are in order.


We do not need the state if we are willing to arm ourselves and defend the sacred principle of private property.Otherwise adding the state as a necessary evil locks us in the vicious cycle that we are imprisoned in. Secession is the only way.

[Grimnir Wotansvolk]

In a stateless world, nukes probably never would have been invented. There's simply no reason any one would give a shit about researching that kind of thing. Well, unless you have a tax-base to outsource the enormous costs onto.

As always, the "libertarian solution" is a firm middle-finger to people who think they have the solution. If you propose a solution that involves infringing on the freedom of choice of 300 million people, you've missed the point.

[nbhadja]

Nice post Mini-Me. The only solutions I can think of are pretty horrific. The least horrific would be letting most people's daily life slowly revert to a hunter-gather, low-tech society while the global scientific elite maintained a modern mode of living to figure out the problem, but with genetic engineering coming into understanding, they would probably engineer themselves into another more advanced species. This one could actually benefit the lower and middle classes spiritually and emotionally. They're lives would be less complicated and more free, though more ignorant.

Or, you could cull the world's population of the leftmost 99.99% of the bell curve and be left with an average human of intelligence 145+ and a much smaller human society which would be least likely to annihilate themselves with weapons. Weapons could even be destroyed at this stage, with no individual being able to re-develop such a thing undetected. This seems easier than bringing up the global population, assuming sheer intelligence and perhaps a few other targeted traits, such as empathy, would prevent wars. The most humane technique to cull would be a birth rate under 2 indefinitely.

Definitely space exploration is a component, but probably a relatively small one for perhaps 75 years. The only solutions that are very good, if the objective is to bring the chances as close to zero as possible with no further considerations, are very radical. Perhaps the reluctance to deal with such drastic policies would lead to a compromise in methods and a less aggressive approach to minimizing the likelihood. Perhaps things like human dignity are weighted.

It's easier to listen to T McKenna wax poetic on his crazy theories
YouTube - Terence McKenna - Psychedelic Society (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp5IlodrPj4)

You are stating that it is safer to have global rules against Nukes (aka a form of global government) than it is for every country to have their own nukes.

Big governments have killed 1000 times more innocent people than nukes will. ever kill.

[nbhadja]

This is simply not true.

The existence of suicide bombers (and less dramatically, the existence of those who willing take their own lives every year) negates your statement. Mere survival is not necessarily everyone's primary goal. There are those, for example, who want to obtain martyrdom, sacrificing their lives for a greater reward in the afterlife.



A nuke is just conventional explosives wrapped around plutonium. The difficulty is in the manufacture, not the detonation, of the bomb. It could certainly be designed to be "user-friendly".

And how many suicide bombers are their on earth?

Very few.

[BenIsForRon]

Just stopping by to say biological diversity is incredibly importatn (someone earlier said it wasn't). The earth has created an immense amount of diversity over many hundreds of millions of years. To think we know better and we can safely wipe away most of that is arrogant.

[Mini-Me]

Just stopping by to say biological diversity is incredibly importatn (someone earlier said it wasn't). The earth has created an immense amount of diversity over many hundreds of millions of years. To think we know better and we can safely wipe away most of that is arrogant.

Hogwash! You're just upset because you aren't a member of teh mastar raec! :D

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is simply not true.

The existence of suicide bombers (and less dramatically, the existence of those who willing take their own lives every year) negates your statement. Mere survival is not necessarily everyone's primary goal. There are those, for example, who want to obtain martyrdom, sacrificing their lives for a greater reward in the afterlife.



A nuke is just conventional explosives wrapped around plutonium. The difficulty is in the manufacture, not the detonation, of the bomb. It could certainly be designed to be "user-friendly".

Actually those suicide bombers are doing it for preservation, preservation for their families. They are not going to launch nuclear weapons knowing not only that they themselves will die, but their whole family, and their whole society. No one, not even Stalin or Brzenski contemplated that.

[Mini-Me]

Actually those suicide bombers are doing it for preservation, preservation for their families. They are not going to launch nuclear weapons knowing not only that they themselves will die, but their whole family, and their whole society. No one, not even Stalin or Brzenski contemplated that.

Were Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris in the right position, I'm sure they would have contemplated it. ;) There aren't a whole lot of, "If I'm going down, I'm taking EVERYONE with me" types, but they do exist.