Ok, Oli, maybe the extent of our disagreement is so huge that I guess I should quit this dialogue all together.

Quickly, though, do you really think Iraq and other hot wars are there by chance, no connection to arms production, to the flow of capital, to access to oil, to power struggle within nation-states and outside them, to who gets the right to move around freely (and have what to eat, and where to shelter safely etc) etc?

I guess our technologies are at place (as opposed to other technologies and therefore other pressures for problem solving) because of some political desiderata. Now, the way I understand what you're saying is this: everyone has more or less the same desires and they are difficult to satisfy, I take, because they are huge. Otherwise, why would people starve? Do we not have technologies to deal with that?

HilanBensusan

Ok, Oli, maybe the extent of our disagreement is so huge that I guess I should quit this dialogue all together.

No! This is very pessimistic thinking Hilan. Starting from large disagreements is a good thing, because it gives you wider perspective on the issues and lets you explore more space. (See ValueOfArgument)

Secondly you're arguing from rhetorical questioning. But it would nice to offer some positive reasons or arguments for the claim that there is causation between arms production, capital flow etc. and the wars. (See OilWar for a page which tries to gather some of this kind of evidence.)

PhilJones

Backlinks (1 items)