My Photo

Out Now!




Or Our First Book...

Blog powered by Typepad

« Quick Question | Main | Results of Poll 5: Death Policies in Multiplayer FPS »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83452030269e200e54fdadd698834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Prime Directive:

Comments

Maybe we should first attempt to generate animal rights laws on the basis you suggest here for humans. This would work as a test case for the rules, enforcement, and other running issues of such a wide-ranging change in attitude to nationalism. :-)

But I agree that we need to stop thinking of our world in terms of our own little pieces, and it will be hard, but it needs to happen.

I understand that the UN was set up in response to the failure of the League of Nations to prevent World War 2.

Though there are problems in the voting system itself (inherent flaws in any voting system rather than any problems with the UN that I know of) I feel that - as you seem to suggest - the UN is probably the best judge of when the notion of Westphalian sovereignty should be broken.

I feel the fact that its verdicts have not always been listened to recently is cause for worry, however.

I'll also add that I personally feel that the UN could perhaps intervene more - to ensure preservation of natural resources, landscapes and such.

[Slightly OT, not enough coffee]

What? How dare you! All right-thinking people* know that $country is the *only* place with the Right Moral Values, and all those $expletive $epithet $derogatory_term foreigners should damn well know it! We'll impose our systems on them by force if we have to - it's all the best for them in the long run!

* Anyone who doesn't share these values is clearly not Right-Thinking**, so doesn't count.

** Should we rewrite "Highlander" as (moral) "Highgrounder"? Tag line: There can be only one.

Bezman: the UN, or something like it, I suppose. I dislike the influence that certain specific nations have in the UN, but it is largely unavoidable and I don't see a new body being much different. The US, as the country with arguably the most influence in the UN, should certainly be able to get an agreement from the UN on any relevant actions - if it cannot, it's a sign that something is wrong.

And yes, the UN was a replacement for the failed League of Nations. It's a shame - I like the name "League of Nations" - very DC Comics. :) The trouble with the League was that people hadn't given up their colonial empires at this point in time, so it was a bit like the League of Empires! :)

Neil: right, like people are going to accept non-interference with animals. There would be no domestic cats and dogs at all if there was a Prime Directive with the animal kingdom. ;)

Peter: LOL! In Highgrounder 2, are we invaded by aliens from another galaxy who claim to have moral high ground over humans? :D

Yeah, no pets. Well we want to make sure we keep the animals in a subservient position, so we can't begin to think of that....

---

"The US, as the country with arguably the most influence in the UN, should certainly be able to get an agreement from the UN on any relevant actions - if it cannot, it's a sign that something is wrong."

Really? So you are saying we should have an overriding council with the biggest nations afforded the biggest say in what happens to everyone else?

Rather than a United Nations, isn't this the Empire of the United States? (And what *will* they call the world when they have colonised it all?? Will we just become states - as the UK is effectively the 51st?)

"Really? So you are saying we should have an overriding council with the biggest nations afforded the biggest say in what happens to everyone else?"

No, I'm saying that given that certain nations currently *do* have the biggest say, it speaks volumes when one of those big nations *can't* get an agreement.

If you look at my previous comment I expressly say: "I dislike the influence that certain specific nations have in the UN, but it is largely unavoidable and I don't see a new body being much different."

Influence is always allocated proportionally, and for the UN it wouldn't make sense for each nation to have equal influence - the idea that the Kingdom of Togo should have the same influence as China is a bit absurd. :)

Like it or not, the big nations *do* have the most influence on the world stage, regardless of the situation in the UN itself.

At least the rotating councils provide opportunities for random nations to benefit from international bribes. :)

Nationhood is such a flawed concept, I become downcast at the very thought of engaging with its flaws.
But it is what we have.

In a real-politik sense, the best way out of undue influence from large nations is a more realistic accountancy method for the world economy, where we realise that natural resources are not free, and output of industrial processes must be ecologically offset or capped.
This might create more balance, because power comes from monetary wealth, and this wealth seems to be associated with urbanisation. Making the world economy a self-regulating system must necessarily check growth in the developed world and shift power to the developing world, who own so much of the natural offset to industrialisation. Example - island nations are surrounded by massive quantities of carbon-processing micro-organisms.

zenBen: I tend to agree with what you say here. I am heartened by the situation in Costa Rica where farmers who maintain forest land are paid for the ecological services the forests provide.

More work in this area would be most welcome!

"zenBen: I tend to agree with what you say here. I am heartened by the situation in Costa Rica where farmers who maintain forest land are paid for the ecological services the forests provide.

More work in this area would be most welcome!"

This is why I think that as you allude above, "the idea that the Kingdom of Togo should have the same influence as China is a bit absurd. :)" is *not* absurd.

If we actually let the people who *haven't* got more "influence" - by which we mean power, which in this world is mainly industrialised nations - have an equal say, maybe we industrialised nations can start to learn what we need to do to get back in step with nature. We need to seriously take on board stuff that we have all but forgotten, and learn how to live on a planet of limited resources with an increasing demand for those resources.

Was it Costa Rica, or maybe Bolivia, that recently offered to hand over its rainforest management to Britain in exchange for economic aid for sustainable development?

A great opportunity, lets see if the Brits have the cojones to step up to the plate!

On the flip side, I recently heard that the world bank owns deeds top much of the Amazon basin, obtained as collateral for a debt that Brasil couldn't pay. That could be apocryphal though.

Outsourcing rainforest management? Truly we live in interesting times! :)

I suspect the story that the World Bank owns most of the Amazon is apocryphal, since Brazil itself doesn't seem entirely clear on who owns what in that large part of the country. Some commentators compare the region to something out of a Sergio Leone western...

It's hard to investigate such things on the internet, though, since "Amazon" tends to return hits from the popular online retailer. :)

But do Amazon have a famous basin? ;-) Searching for amazon+basin would surely lessen he effects of the retailer in the results? Mind you I am sure they probably do sell a kitchen sink or two...

I wouldn't trust the UK with rainforest management. We have no forests left, let alone rainforests.

Unless the relevant people wanted the forest torn down in double-quick time. I think we have people who do that... :-)

For the rainforest outsourcing, see
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article3198878.ece

And the story about Brasil comes from this guy, minute 59 onward (you can skip ahead cos its google video) -
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

You have to watch the latter the whole way through to get the context. Frankly, it's crazy stuff, and has no corroboration. But it could just be crazy enough to be true - in a twisted way, everything he's saying makes a kind of sense and sheds light on the madness of the last 8 years of Bush.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment