> From: Bryon Daly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >From: "The Fool" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >That's the thing about empires. They squeeze out competitive forces and > >it's those competitive forces that keep innovation and progress alive. > >For example there was one point when china was all set to conquer Europe, > >they had a massive fleet the likes never seen up to that time, and their > >ships were decidedly better than the ones of European nations at the > >time. The fleet was on it's way, rounding the horn of Africa, ready to > >descend upon Europe like locusts. But then the emperor died. The new > >emperor thought that having a big fleet was not such a good idea. The > >fleet was eventually scuttled and china is a third world country today. > >Likewise once upon a time the Japanese made the best guns, but by the mid > >eighteen hundreds there were no guns in Japan. Japan lost it's guns > >because the rulers ever so slowly restricted the making of / repair of > >guns. First they restricted how many guns could be made per year. > >Slowly they reduced this number eventually to zero. Then they restricted > >the repair of guns per year. So by the mid 1800's Japan no longer had > >any guns. > > > >The Idea is very simple and very sound. When you have large empires, > >popes, etc. they are able to restrict 'taboo' ideas / technology, etc. > >The other part is that usually no two emperors or popes have the same > >definition of what is 'taboo', so you get a whittling effect, one > >whittling this away, another whittling that away. It's not a quick > >process. > > So, would you say that it is bad for the US to participate in the ABM > treaty, > nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and/or nuclear test ban? Will doing so > lead to > the decline of the US? I'm assuming you'll say no, so my follow up is "Why > not? > How does this differ from the China/Japan cases you mention?"
We model these things with huge super computers now so I don't know if this principle applies as much in this case. MAD still works against russia and china if not lesser powers. Competition is not nessesarily a good thing, it can lead to very bad consequence w/ respect to war. The U.S. has just the right amount of federal and state powers. The Federal system isn't an empire, and the states end up competeing with each other providing the perfect mix. It becomes harder to whittle away, technologies, idea, books, etc. > What about these other controversial/restricted technologies, are > restrictions > on these acceptable? Depends on who is doing the research. I think the principle will apply here. No technology will be banned by every state, as someone somewhere sees an advantage in developing it. > - cloning The U.S. has banned this (human), but some people in other countries are proclaiming work on it. > - neutron bombs > - "frankenfood" research The E.U. and other countries has banned a lot this type of stuff, but the U.S. has not. > - human genetic experimentation/modification > - biowarfare research > - human fetal stem cell research U.S. banned but practiced in other countries. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
