(work in progress)(excerpt from extropy list)

An oft cited justification for this war by war supporters is that ousting the murderous regime of Saddam Hussein even though civilians will be killed in the process, will result in fewer deaths in total. Saddam Hussien, by conservative estimates, is responsible for about 200,000 deaths in the past 30 years. 50,000 alone during the repression of the Shiite majority uprising post Gulf War I. Another large number was the officially sanctioned Anfal campaign, which was an attempt to wipe Kurds off the face of Iraq. If we were to suppose that Saddam Regime continued 10 years into the future (the average life expectancy) we would see another 60,000 deaths if his reign continued, not counting the reign of his sons, who have been demonstrably much worse with the little power they do weild. So, will this war cause more than 60,000 deaths? It is conceivable that the coalition will have to completely eliminate the Republican Guard, which could be around 100,000 individuals, to dispose the Saddam regime, which makes the utilitarian cost in lives of inaction vs. action questionable.

This seems a good point, if the justification of this war relied on a dead through action vs. dead through inaction comparison based on drawing out rates of dead in the past linearly into the future, this would definitely deserve some deep consideration. Note my qualifier of drawing out past rates linearly.

I am not a fan of war, but I am very much aware of how technologies of the future are getting increasingly cheaper and made available to less and less resourceful individuals.

It does not surprise me that this concern receives little consideration. Most people draw technological progression out linearly, instead of exponential which is the curve it truly follows. See The Law of Accelerating Returns (http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1) for more info. The growing pace of technology is indeed the primary reason why I support this, in addition to the previous reasons mentioned. There is nothing that scares me more than realizing that in the future fewer and fewer people will be able to commit mass tragedies easier and easier. We need, ASAP, to remove the primary causes of all this animosity. Giving everybody in the world an avenue to better themselves will remove a LOT of the animosity that breeds terrorists, hatred, and intolerance. Nothing would benefit the Arab community more than a wealthy free democracy in IRAQ. While in the short term, this will cause more animosity, in the long term, it will open up the Arab world to freedom and democracy, which will stem animosity.

This whole scenario can be quite scary, as there are a lot more 'tribes' whose animosity could wipe out life on earth. The greens, for example, may one day see it better to wipe off all humans on this planet, we are just raping and pillaging it, they say. And what does a 'reasonable' person do to someone who is raping and pillaging, after all? *shudder* I can not think of a way to work to diminish the animosity of some of these groups, which is why I am involved in and support the Lifeboat Foundation (www.lifeboat.com)

For starters though, lets try to bring the Arab nations out of the corrupt, oppressed middle ages their murderous dictators and theocracies keep them in. Right now one must be a motivated billionaire or have connections to one to really wreak mass havoc and cause thousands of deaths. In 10 years, one may need only be a millionaire, 10 years after that, a moderately intelligent well motivated individual could wipe out thousands to millions of people. I see it in my head as a graph, the resources (intellect, money, time) etc needed to commit massive tragedies continues to decline, while an opposing line, how many people one can kill, rises. Linearly? Exponentially? Logarithmically? Scary stuff. This was the reason why I added my optimistic outcome in my list in my previous essay:

6) There are no Arab Democracies, and a democratic IRAQ could potentially become a 'shinning beacon of democracy in an Arab sea of tyranny, oppression, and despair' When Arab peoples see the life that can be lived in a free Arab nation, it can help to diffuse the anti-west hatred and anti-progress attitude that many Arab theocracies, monarchies, and dictators have imposed upon their people.

People who promote "peace at all costs" simply do not recognize that these technologies have the capacity for eliminating civilization as we know it

>
> I'll make an assertion to people who object to my position (or the
> activities of the U.S./U.K./Au) -- *you* are *clueless* with respect
> to how bad it could get and how close people who have virtually
> no respect for "human dignity" are to bridging the gap to the point
> where they are executing your worst nightmare. How long do you need
> to watch Al-Jazeera before you figure out that they are promoting
> the "unextropic" concept that they want you ("us") dead?

Well said.

And this leads of course back to the question of assessing the casualties of inaction vs. action, and why a linear projection of current rates isn't valid. In the future, a pissed of terrorist could wipe out *the entire human population* Yeah, some Iraqi civilians will be killed in this attempt to overthrow a murderous dictatorial regime, but if we don't provide a democratic peaceful avenue for Arabs and middle easterners to grow, they may very well wipe humanity off the face of the earth. The most clinching moment for this was probably reading Robert Wrights "A Real War On Terrorism" (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2070210&entry=2070211) which some list members have cited to support an stance against this war. I found it the opposite, especially Wrights description of what Mohommad Atta went through in various Arab countries trying to find a positive productive outlet for his efforts and intellect, and was blocked every step of the way, eventually finding the only avenue offered, terrorism. In fact, Wright recommends democraticization in authoritarian Arab regimes to stem this tide of growing animosity, along with globalization. Basically acknowledging that these efforts will lead to resentment among Arabs, Wright still recommends to 'Take your bitter medicine early' saying "But in the case of terrorism, I have a decided preference because in 10 or 20 years, terrorism will have much more lethal potential than it has now. So, if there are burdens we can bear now-in money, even in lives-that will dampen future terrorism, they're probably worth it." While some or much of this essay to some will lead them to not support the current war, I found it a more compelling argument to support it, although critical of particulars of some of Bush's actions.

>
> And thank you Michael for detailing points that need to responded
> to (i.e. the rationale behind a pro-war position) much better than
> I might have done.
>
> Robert
>

Thank you for the positive comments Robert. I am not surprised that no one has yet responded to these points with anything except "I don't like this war"

Regards,

Michael Dickey