"Empathy and understanding of a person's mindset and actions, while noble pursuits, do not provide an ability in relegating responsibility of such mindsets and actions to a certain party. Placing of blame and responsibility requires a…"
I Power
Scientific Research & Self-Development Activism
Cryptography and Nuclear Weapons...What a Combo
The art of protecting information by transforming it (encrypting it) into an unreadable format, called cipher text. Only those who possess a secret key can decipher (or decrypt) the message into plain text. Encrypted messages can sometimes be broken by cryptanalysis, also called codebreaking, although moderncryptography techniques are virtually unbreakable.
As the Internet and other forms of electronic communication become more prevalent, electronic security is becoming increasingly important. Cryptography is used to protect e-mail messages, credit card information, and corporate data. One of the most popular cryptography systems used on the Internet is Pretty Good Privacybecause it's effective and free.
Cryptography systems can be broadly classified into symmetric-key systems that use a single key that both the sender and recipient have, and public-key systems that use two keys, a public key known to everyone and a private key that only the recipient of messages uses.
I understand that in our current society, we need to prevent people from obtaining knowledge which could be used to create dangerous weapons, and various other types of destructive objects....
But as I've seen on various descriptions of what a Type I Civilization looks like...it always mentions how information is free to everyone. Maybe I'm generalizing too much (common tendency as a mathematician), but if all information is supposed to be free to everyone:
1) Isn't Cryptography holding us back by making information secret?
2) Aren't we holding ourselves back by being dumb enough to think we can assume absolute power of the world through the possesion of knowledge of how to create dangerous weapons?
If we are to be able to share information freely, we must eliminate both cryptography and the need for it. The only way I can see how to do this is to convince people that the only way to do this is through the following argument which is definitely counterintuitive and probably a little naive at this point....but that's why I'm posting it here first so you can all tell my why it should fail. Have at it.
My Idea of what a Global Government may look like:
Since the majority of the world powers have nuclear weapons, we find ourselves in a no win situation for absolute power. There is no way for anyone to take over the world with their current form of government because the moment they try, someone will inevitably nuke the planet so that no one can have it. This has created a momentary stand still (and it will probably not last as long as you or I think). http://news.stanford.edu/news/2009/july22/hellman-nuclear-analysis-...
10% in my lifetime is rather high for my liking...and just the possibility that one of them could go off on accident and not even on purpose (though that is less likely) is enough for me and hopefully you to realize we need to find a good solution soon.
What I'm about to suggest next is probably slightly "crazy" and I'm going to put it out there because that's what this site is for...the testing of new and unusual ideas.
What would happen if every country in the world had nukes, knew how to build more and had the resources to do it?
This thought terrifies me at first (their are a lot of nut jobs out there), but what I thought next terrified me even more...because it might mean I'm losing my grip on reality (if I ever had it to begin with)
If we release the all of our information of how to build nukes and the safety precautions we take to keep them from accidentally going off, then we all have equal and absolute power because we can all blow each other up at any time we wish. You're probably thinking...this guy just said he hates nukes...why does he want us all to have them?
The odds of one of us starting a nuclear war rather than because of a malfunction is significantly higher, especially if we all have the best and most up to date safety regulations preventing them from going off accidentally. In the current structure of who does and doesn't have weapons, it creates a power imbalance and by not sharing how to keep nukes from going off accidentally, we're actually endangering ourselves. Everyone wants to have equal and absolute power and in preventing them from getting it, we may actually be creating more problems by making them angry (a condition which clearly causes us to make stupid irrational decisions).
If we give away the information, now truly no one is more powerful than the next. We all have equal and absolute power and if we let everyone have it as a gesture of good faith, then maybe (and this is where I'm probably horribly naive) they will see the ridiculous idea that they can actually use the nukes to take over the world. Right now, all I think they see is someone who has power and they don't. If that goes away, maybe they come out of a blind rage for power and understand that having nukes is a no win situation.
And now that we'd be all on even ground, we actually feel comfortable negotiating because we can all veto world policies (by nuking the world) and no one can stop us from doing so. It forces us to consider everyone's opinions and in an odd sort of way make actually give us a way to unite. This is really bizzare, so please tell me what you think.
Tags: Civilization, Cryptography, I, Nukes, Type
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Bart on -
Doing this would teach you some hard lessons about naivety.
There are many countries out there that would understand the meaning of this power. But political leaders are often sociopaths. Traits that can be found in various leaders are stuff like lack of empathy, stubbornness and an unprecedented hunger for power.
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on -
"But political leaders are often sociopaths. Traits that can be found in various leaders are stuff like lack of empathy, stubbornness and an unprecedented hunger for power."
While all of this is true, I'd like to suggest that these types of leaders are also very inclined to act out of self preservation. If they know the entire world is going to step in and stop them (and do so in a successful way), then maybe they won't be so quick to try anything...and even if they do try something...maybe everyone else in the world will be that much more likely to jump in and stop them since the danger is that much higher.
In the end, I agree that it's probably not a good idea, and I'd rather see no one have the power to destroy the entire planet...but the question I'm always left with is: who's going to put down their last nuke first? It sure wouldn't be me.
-
Permalink Reply by Bart on
-
we will probably get use for the nuclear weapons, really have no idea about the future. Perhaps we`ll need them to fend of hostile aliens or make new sun or whatever :)
Another thing is the security risk, the old weapons will at least have to be modernized or switched out before they go out of date, could be terrible.
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on
-
If you ever have moments in your life where you realize just how stupid you sounded after saying something...I just had one of those...ignore the second half of the original post and talk about the first half with cryptography if you like.
I realize now that my thoughts with nukes was an (illadvised) suggestion to a more general solution (that still could possibly work) where we create a system of power in which we are all equally capable and equally held responsible. If anyone thinks this kind of system is possible to create without giving everyone the power to kill each other, please talk about that instead. (and no, I'm not suggesting Communism. I'm attempting to suggest more of a hybrid of democracy and communism where we take the best of both and none of the worst.)
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on -
doesn't matter so much.. you thought about it. which is good. that's what matters.
-
Permalink Reply by The Shiznit on -
Your thoughts and line of questioning are not new. This debate has been going on for quite a long time with respect to gun ownership and gun control, and perhaps especially here in the United States because of the Second Amendment to our Constitution which guarantees our citizens "the right to bear arms;" and because of the on-going political battle to either remove or restrict that right.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It would probably surprise most Americans to learn, though, that "the right to bear arms" is a right that most countries in this world give their citizens; including many Communist countries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
Aside from arguments regarding personal self-defense, the historical rationale behind such rights to gun ownership has revolved around the idea that people should have the ability to revolt against tyrannical regimes and to overthrow them, such as was done here in the U.S. in our war of Independence in the 1700's. This has become increasingly more difficult to actually do, though, since the Industrial Age and the accompanying inventions of such things as the machine-gun, airplanes, tanks, and other advanced weapons of war, {including nukes,} which only governments alone are ever given the rights to control. In other words, it's one thing for a private militia to revolt against an army when both sides are shooting the same kind of muskets; and quite another thing for people to attempt the use of handguns against tanks!
And although I do not think that the world would be a safer place if everybody had access to nukes, I can appreciate your reasoning, because it is a fact that countries in this world with the most freedoms regarding gun ownership also have the lowest rates of crime. I'm not sure if that statistic could, or should be attributed entirely to their citizenry's freedom to bear arms, though; because those countries with the most freedoms regarding gun ownership are also the most likely to give their citizens other freedoms as well... which would obviously have a significant impact on their crime statistics; especially with regards to their policies and practices dealing with the legality and/or prohibition of drugs and alcohol.
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
another great post! thanks for the links, too, very important stuff to think about.
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on
-
I've had some more time to think about this and while I don't know how we're going to reduce nuclear weapons (or even if we should all the way to 0 thanks to Bart's suggestions about other good uses for them)...I've created a metaphor of sorts which doesn't end well:
Imagine you are in an alley way or a bad part of town with a gun, and you have someone else with you (a friend) and they also have a gun. Now, you are suddenly finding yourself surrounded by a gang. They all look very threatening and have knives. My suggestion above is to give them all guns so it's a "fair fight" and they don't feel at a disadvantage. lol.
So my realization from all this is that other countries really don't want nukes (at least that's not their ultimate goal...and their ultimate goal inevitably affects all their actions in some way or another.). They just want to control everything (steal our money in the alley so to speak)...and if we give them all nukes, then we turn this into a mexican standoff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_standoff and inevitably, someone gets shot because someone panics, accidentally puts their finger on the trigger too hard, or tries to act first and thinks they can get away with shooting them off once (because they think no one else really wants to shoot back....) Here are some close calls without the entire world being armed: http://www.nuclearfiles.org/menu/key-issues/nuclear-weapons/issues/...
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on
-
Here's the "impossible" problem and hopefully a better solution:
Giving everyone else weapons (effectively increasing the world's stockpile) increases fear because now anyone and everyone can shoot them off. Bad idea.
Reducing our own weapons (effectively decreasing the world's stockpile) increases fear because we are no longer able to defend ourselves. Also Bad idea.
So what this tells me (and what I think Bart is suggesting) is that we actually shouldn't change anything. It's a "norm" that on some level, people are used to and to deviate from that only increases fear, no matter how we do it.
We should be giving away things...just not nukes. How do you or I or anyone else make friends? Common goals and sharing.
Here's the way the world thinks right now: If I have a pizza (or good technology that doesn't blow each other up), you can have some only if you're my friend.
Very selfish. In fact, even though your my friend, you have to pay me for it. You don't do this with your close friends, so why should we do it with our closest nations?
Here's how we should think (and how we can obtain peace): If I have a pizza, I'm going to just give it to you...for free. You now choose to become my friend...even if you were my enemy before, you'll play nice long enough to get the pizza...we all want free shit and if you're giving it away...I like you.
I understand that people can take advantage of each other in this scenario...but how often do your true friends backstab you...or even good acquaintances? Maybe we can give away enough free pizza that they'll think twice about hurting a newfound friend or frenemy. Maybe they'll even protect us so that they're chance of getting free pizza stays an option. After all, if you're blown up, who buys the pizza?
-
Permalink Reply by Sorlaize on
-
We have many cultures in the world that we'd lose in a nuclear accident, and yet, the people in charge of nuclear weapons don't necessarily appreciate that, at all.
I think the best solution is to fundamentally come to an understanding that such conflict only harms us all. But, that is a difficult task. How do you change peoples' minds without usurping through war? Reminds me of the Three Kingdoms period... it's human nature for us to behave this way. Put another way: we aren't intelligent enough to escape our biologically driven behaviour.. discontent must mean conflict.
If we were to have actual world peace & worldwide good standards of living, we'd need for there to not be a conflict of interests. Nations want more prosperity. But for all intents and purposes, this must come from fucking someone else over, in terms of wealth. However the absurdity of it is that if humanity worked together to solve its problems there wouldn't *be* a raging lack of know-how; people cramming into trains; poor use of land; extravagant spending; poor use of money.. to cause these problems, slowly and gradually, for other nations on an international level.
TLDR; we are living in a stupid society where it is not cool to think logically and practically;- *at the best of times*
-
Permalink Reply by Bart on
-
The national states we all live in now are creating barriers. But for the time being they do seem like the best alternative we have since the other option will be something like the european union which i find too undemocratic.
But, if we survive for a few more years, we can probably find some new and much better idea.
-
Permalink Reply by steven.a.a.bauer on
-
Time to call in the 9 year old girls with tanks ;)
http://www.ted.com/talks/john_hunter_on_the_world_peace_game.html
Forum
Condemning others to validate ourselves.
Started by Lore in I Power: Self-Development Activism. Last reply by Aya 17 hours ago. 10 Replies 0 Likes
The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation"
Started by Aya in Off-Topic. Last reply by Aya on Monday. 34 Replies 1 Like
Lexical argumentation and its merit
Started by Anthony D in Off-Topic. Last reply by Anthony D May 16. 21 Replies 0 Likes
Latest Activity
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Cognitive dissonance. One of the most irritating human traits."
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Absolutely, I completely agree. The only way to solve the problem is to eliminate the cause.
Exactly, the shooter gains worldwide fame over night. Why would a resentful, friendless, lonely, insane young man who wanted to leave an impression on the…"
Aya replied to Aya's discussion The ethical implications of "Temporal Isolation""From the last three lines of your post, I'm assuming you are applying the "better safe than sorry" mentality to life-rights over all of time. This addresses points 3) and 5) of my post on Wed 5/15, but does not address points 1),…"
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
Creating Your Own "Crew"
This is a Group for people who are interested in the idea of expanding I-Power by encouraging our members to create I-Power/SDA related cell groups, or "Crews" in their own communities.See More
Isaac Renshaw joined The Shiznit's group
The Transition Movement
The Transition Movement is a grassroots Network of communities that are working to build resilience in response to peak oil, climate change, and economic instability. Utilizing various concepts such as Permaculture and Local Currency systems, the…See More
Anthony D replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."An issue in the context of your reply is the so-called "mad/bad debate". And it very much plays into the perception of these rather extreme forms of criminal behavior.
From a legal and forensic psychological standpoint a…"
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Interesting. I think that just being aware that our behavior is not always justified and taking on some personal responsibility can go a long way."
Lore replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."Maybe I take empathy and attempting to understand such actions by people to the extreme, but I think it is important to understand the causes of such behavior. You do bring up a good point about school shootings Nathaniel, in that the media makes…"
Nathaniel Mortazavi replied to Lore's discussion Condemning others to validate ourselves."I agree with the principle to an extent. However, in the case of school shooters, I don't think it can be justified. Same with rape. There's definitely a line, but like you said, those are the most extreme cases.
On the topic of mass…"
© 2013 Created by Reese Leysen.
