h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

While I prefer to clearly think out my rants, this one is going to be presented in haste so I can get on with other stuff:

A Third World War is unlikely at best: The populations of most countries, especially women, are usually smarter than their elected representatives. The representatives are stuck with pleasing each side in order to remain elected representatives, and so suit nobody. This situation was created in a time of no mass-communications, when a single message could take weeks or months to get where it was going and only the really well-off could afford to get to the capital to vote.....assuming they were allowed to.

Today, the power structure is heavily tilted in favour of multi-national corporations and those that own/control technologies. The age of nuclear weapons as 'war toys' is over: computers control everything now (like 'smart bombs'); any hacker will tell you that. WWIII, if it happens, will more closely resemble the film The Day The Earth Stood Still than Dr. Strangelove.

The Civil wars still raging in smaller countries are based upon ego, financial problems (see Noam Chomsky's "Class Warfare") and being under-priviledged compared to the West. Those in places of power wish to stay there; anyone who threatens that power is oging ot be kept down or put down.

From the other entries in these forums, too many are still using antiquated thought-processes for dealing with modern/future problems. There are alternatives to the acquisition of stuff: land, money, power, food, water, minerals, etc.....but this will mean giving up competition -for-gain and learning greater cooperation between individuals and nation-states. How much does one person need? How much does a country need?

Isaac Asimov once said that violence is the last resort of the incompetent. My feeling is that violence is the last resort of those with small egos or vanity problems......they wouldn't have to puff themselves up and constantly prove their greater-than-othersness otherwise.

Imagine a world where we shared the wealth; everyone had enough of what they needed and actually communicated when they talked. That can happen.

Fruitbat

You obviously never heard of a guy call Bush.

Actually, I have...although I didn't follow the election; I keep hoping that if I ignore these idiots long enough they'll all go away. So far, that hasn't worked.

Reality is still there, though; what I wrote still stands. I came of age at the start of the Reagan/Thatcher years, when most people I knew were half-expecting to be blown up because of idiot politicians....and the best outcome of that era was spending the Soviet Union into the ground: they couldn't keep up the Arms Race because their economic structure couldn't handle it.
Of course, now we're stuck with the lovely Nukes that were built in that time and are still a threat.....

Today, computers do run everything: why was everyone freaking out over Y2K? Granted, George W. Bush may be an arrogant, rich, ignorant, bigoted idiot.....but enough people voted for him to elect him. I can't argue this point intelligently because I don't know anything about Bush ( nor do I wish to) nor his policies. What I do know is that the 10% of the population who use computers regularly are an utter mystery to the 90% who don't, and somewhere deep inside them is a great deal of fear about that.
My guess is that Bush is capitalising on that fear by using attitudes that are outmoded but which sound good to an ignorant and terrified population, many of whom have never thought for themselves or really know how to.

From what little I understand of American politics, the President must gather a lot of support from Congress and other sources before doing something really big and important; the structure was set up to prevent a misuse of power by a single individual. That means that sometimes really important, socially relevant material gets held up by the Opposition and other times it gets through.

Far more sinister issues are the ability to clone, genetically altered foodstuffs, biological warfare and the corporations that control/profit by this technology. Too many people are willing to take all of this lying down.

When the people lead, eventually the leaders will follow.

Fruitbat

Actually thsi intersted me a bit, but more in line with thinking about the 2001 Brittish General Election. A notable fact was that the BNP (A fairly nasty xenophobic party) won a fair amount of support in two constituancys. Once again it was contraversial wheather they shoudl be allowed to have a party political broadcast. I always call thsi teh rpice of democracy. The ppulation can be easily scared into selecting an extreme government. The statement, where people move, leaders follow is kind of true, but the correct spin on teh situation can also turn teh masses to whatever area you like.

Reminiscent of 'Manufacturing Consent' - check out the documentary and book that it's based upon.

Fruitbat

Actually, the war powers resoloution means that the executive has 60 days after military force is used to ask congress for approval and/orn further funding. Further More Al Gore won the US presedential election by 1/2 a million votes, thats nearly 5x more than JFK's winning margin in the 1960 election.