4 ms·

On the face of it I'm inclined to agree, but how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be o

On the face of it I'm inclined to agree, but how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now.

gnramires 5y ago
Or maybe another great war could destroy civilization, and it's best not to play around it irresponsibly. Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex. But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger. (To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)
- nine_k 5y ago
  Did you notice how the US never had a war with USSR (beside proxy wars, like Afghanistan in 1980s), but still defeated it economically? Of course a war is not a great idea, and is a device of last resort. But who are you friends with, and who do you depend on economically, plays a very large role on which regimes last, and which get changed, one way or another.
jrochkind1 5y ago
The idea that America "needs" international conflict is kind of terrifying.
- atlasunshrugged 5y ago
  Just to clarify, I said common enemy, not conflict (which to me implies kinetic or hybrid warfare). My greatest preference would be for our common enemy not to be a country but rather a shared goal that benefits humanity; I had high hopes that climate change or the pandemic would be that... now my last hope is aliens uniting the human race together (although I hope it ends up more like Star Trek)
  - jrochkind1 5y ago
    Why would you describe a 'shared goal that benefits humanity' as an 'enemy'? Do you usually consider yourself an enemy of your goals?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
      - jrochkind1 5y ago
        Sorry, it's not meant to be a gotcha, I think it's more than accidentally using the wrong word, I think we are indeed taught that of course we "need" an enemy, such that we just repeat it/internalize it without even considering what we're saying. And it's terrifying. The point was very much not clear. Go back and look at your first comment. It clearly read to me as saying we needed a common enemy so the question was what country was most suitable. I was not intentionally misreading it. And I don't think it's at all unusual for Americans to think what it clearly said. And it's terrifying.
phs318u 5y ago
You want a common enemy? How about ignorance? Or poverty? Or if they're too hard, how about tackling obesity, or the prescription drug epidemic, or tackling under-employment and job security, or routing out political corruption, or mitigating the corrupting behaviour of the profit motive on the criminal justice system? Still too hard? How about uniting against crumbling infrastructure? Or tackling pollution? I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.
- efitz 5y ago
  People are tribal. The enemy has to be a tribe of people that are “other”.
  - phs318u 5y ago
    Of course. So the real enemy is tribalism.
pphysch 5y ago
> how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions. > Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now. AIPAC is far too powerful for that to happen.

gnramires 5y ago

Or maybe another great war could destroy civilization, and it's best not to play around it irresponsibly. Most of our ills are coordination failures. I believe solutions are complex, because society is growing more complex. But we also need to find ways to reinvent ourselves so that we won't fall prey to the various instabilities we are subject to -- political instabilities, environmental instabilities, even AI safety instabilities. What is needed is a clear vision of our shared goal: to maximize the well being of all conscious creatures. As long as most of our system design is not aligned with that, we will be in significant danger. (To be honest, just existing in the long term is just so darn difficult -- something few people realize -- that even with such systems in place there are no guarantees)

nine_k 5y ago
Did you notice how the US never had a war with USSR (beside proxy wars, like Afghanistan in 1980s), but still defeated it economically? Of course a war is not a great idea, and is a device of last resort. But who are you friends with, and who do you depend on economically, plays a very large role on which regimes last, and which get changed, one way or another.

jrochkind1 5y ago

The idea that America "needs" international conflict is kind of terrifying.

atlasunshrugged 5y ago
Just to clarify, I said common enemy, not conflict (which to me implies kinetic or hybrid warfare). My greatest preference would be for our common enemy not to be a country but rather a shared goal that benefits humanity; I had high hopes that climate change or the pandemic would be that... now my last hope is aliens uniting the human race together (although I hope it ends up more like Star Trek)
- jrochkind1 5y ago
  Why would you describe a 'shared goal that benefits humanity' as an 'enemy'? Do you usually consider yourself an enemy of your goals?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
    - jrochkind1 5y ago
      Sorry, it's not meant to be a gotcha, I think it's more than accidentally using the wrong word, I think we are indeed taught that of course we "need" an enemy, such that we just repeat it/internalize it without even considering what we're saying. And it's terrifying. The point was very much not clear. Go back and look at your first comment. It clearly read to me as saying we needed a common enemy so the question was what country was most suitable. I was not intentionally misreading it. And I don't think it's at all unusual for Americans to think what it clearly said. And it's terrifying.

phs318u 5y ago

You want a common enemy? How about ignorance? Or poverty? Or if they're too hard, how about tackling obesity, or the prescription drug epidemic, or tackling under-employment and job security, or routing out political corruption, or mitigating the corrupting behaviour of the profit motive on the criminal justice system? Still too hard? How about uniting against crumbling infrastructure? Or tackling pollution? I don't think America lacks for common enemies. What it lacks is the will to develop agreed strategies for those common enemies. The political structures in the US all but guarantee that that lack of unification on strategy will continue indefinitely.

efitz 5y ago
People are tribal. The enemy has to be a tribe of people that are “other”.
- phs318u 5y ago
  Of course. So the real enemy is tribalism.

pphysch 5y ago

> how do you know that's what is causing America's ills? Look around. Hundreds of millions of Americans are suffering under the predatory practices of massive corporations: unnecessary debt, opioids, malnutrition, misinformation, other addictions. > Maybe America does need a common enemy; maybe it should be one that is committing genocide right now. AIPAC is far too powerful for that to happen.