Paris Attack

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

therein lies the question, Mr A.

but my question to that one is: HOW do we in the west even begin to discuss this stuff with people who STILL live in the dark ages - people who strap bombs on themselves and go into public places and blow themselves up, along with as many non-combatants (women&children) as possible?

but while 'starfleet' could translate and understand klingon, the islamics flatly refuse to even listen to reason -

A lot of people refuse to listen to reason. That is hardly unique in any culture.

But societal pressure can, given time, cause even their thinking to evolve. And under the right circumstances, without any time at all. Because those that who least listen to reason are the ones who have most outsourced that to their communities.

Communities of human beings are funny things. The human being is a social animal, in a very core and fundamental way. We would not exist as a dominant species if we were not. It is arguably our most highly-developed trait.

And that means something very important. To at least some extent, we literally outsource portions of our minds.

I know that sounds a bit crazy, but think about the old married couple. After not too many years, most develop very simple divisions of labor, that allow each member of the couple to have additional focus, additional energy, for the part that they are responsible for thinking about. One might handle the finances, the other the gardening. One might do the cooking, the other the shopping. Often one tends to remember one type of fact (e.g. social network information) and the other data (phone numbers, etc.) And so on. It comes naturally to us, and it makes our lives so much easier that the mechanism by which it happens has evolved to be an almost defining part of being human.

It is known that when one half of a married couple dies, the other is far more likely to die in the first year afterward. After a divorce, at least part of the emotional trauma is due to readjusting one's life to deal with the things you didn't previously have to worry about. It is analogous to the way a portion of our sense of self is in our whole body, due to the central nervous system not being contained entirely in the skull. And that's why it's pretty clear that people can have a very strong influence, not only on each others' moods and thoughts, but even on their sense of self.

Solitary confinement is considered a harsh punishment not just because it is a small box, but because being alone with oneself for long periods of time literally deprives you of that part of your mind, and sense of self, and feeling of belonging, that resides not in you, but in the community. Even a portion of our identity is external to our bodies in the form of in-groups. People who cheer for the same sports team, or go to the same church. These things are more than pastimes, they are fractions of one's identity.

And the consensus mind of this extended identity of a community can change with the conscious decision of a few, followed by the subconscious decision of the many (those who for one reason or another are inclined to follow, rather than lead).

So the art is in getting the right few to speak up, to counter the wrong ones. It's not really a game of numbers at all. It's a game of appealing to the minds of individuals who possess the credibility to have influence, and the courage to use it. Malcolm Gladwell's book "The Tipping Point" covered this concept.

Imagine an internet forum exactly like this one in every way, but mirrored into the muslim world.

When I think of it, I imagine one or two fundamentalists, and a whole range of other opinions. When none of the majority speak up, the tone of the conversation can be set by the extremists. But how many of the majority, speaking clearly and strongly, does it really take to change the tone of the whole discussion?

The fundamentalists may indeed have the ears of many. But what they don't have is a case that is logical. It relies entirely on getting people to set aside logic by using emotional appeals.

I maintain that if we can inspire even just one or two of the right moderates in each pool of thought to speak up, and present a logical case, the tone CAN be changed, even very quickly. In the muslim world the action requires far more courage than in ours, of course. Here, there is virtually no risk in speaking up, and there the penalty can rise as high as death.

But that doesn't mean I can't imagine it happening, even quite suddenly, given the right circumstance.

Our job, in the west, is to do what we can to provide that circumstance.

That doesn't require us to speak the same language at all. They won't be listening to our words in any case (it is easy to lie, and the ones we need to speak for us won't be the dumb ones).

They'll be looking at our actions.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

How would you rate the risk of a dangerous disconnect between social progression running into the strong headwind of natural human behaviour combined with the very fast tailwind of the democratisation of previously state monopolised violence?


I'd rate it as extremely dangerous myself, and I'm not sure if most grasp how potentially dangerous it may be(and that's thinking "glass half full".

Is it cheating to say "it depends?"


Human culture does indeed evolve slowly. But it does not do so continuously. One hundred years of stagnation (or perhaps build-up of societal tension) and then, boom, a dramatic change that sweeps over a society. Not just in revolutions, but also in peaceful movements. Ghandi and MLK lead movements that changed the attitudes of centuries within far shorter periods of time. Perhaps not completely, or instantly, but quickly enough to serve.


I think we are witnessing such a turbulent time. We are at a tipping point. What we do right now really matters. The symbolism of our actions. The messages we send with what we do. The choices we make will have reverberations into the centuries in a manner that the same actions just wouldn't have pre-9/11.


So yes, I too see a large disconnect, and there is a lot to fear. But I also think that precisely BECAUSE of the turbulence, the social progression has the possibility of leaping forward in this moment as well.


It IS extremely dangerous. And it IS very full of positive possibilities. It's a high-stakes game, and we have no choice but to play it. But because of that it is a tipping point, and if we can get it just right, we CAN make a huge difference in the odds.

Agreed. But the shame side of things can also escalate into a new Spanish Inquisition. Unfortunately, we don't have a universally respected arbiter in the court of public opinion.

I don't know about that. How long did it take the Roman Catholic Church to forgive and accept Gallileo? How many Catholics did so first?


Universally respected arbiters (e.g. religious leaders) aren't actually leaders at all. They are followers. They are guardians of institutions, and the traditions associated with them, which elevated them to authority and give them power. If the traditions are benign or positive, this can be good. If not, less so. But I wouldn't expect them to lead change in a meaningful way. They are oriented to preserve the status quo.


So a "universally respected" arbiter doesn't exist. But since I think it is unlikely to do any good if it did, that's probably a good thing. We don't need or want a world-wide Ayatollah. Personally, I think the fact that any Muslim at all can stand up to lead prayers in the mosque is one of the things that might save us. We just need to create circumstances in which the right ones can find the courage to do so.

Quite a few good quotes from Voltaire worth paying attention to. But it's worth noting that no one is perfect, not even Voltaire. I think I recall reading he had some less than progressive thoughts on slavery/race which would be completely out of step with today. I'm surprised it hasn't been used as ammunition to discount/disparage his worthwhile ideas.

I'm certainly not trying to promote Voltaire's body of work with my selection.

There's plenty of other quotes that say more or less the same thing. I chose his version not only because it is well-recognized, but also because it gave a nod to the topic of the thread, and served to remind the reader that many of the ideals which we now think of as "American" values came from French, and other European thinkers, so we in some sense owe a debt of solidarity to those allies now under attack for them.

But that selection really was just a flourish that was intended to add a mere dash of subtlety, but no substantive argument, to my post. The main point would have worked just as well with another version.

Isn't there a problem with the speed of technological progression and the passing of power between generations?


Those entrenched in power for the foreseeable future are not from the younger/progressive populations we hope will lead us to a brighter future.


Isn't the transfer of power between generations fairly static?


And doesn't that present a clear and present danger to stability?

Well, as long as the human lifespan isn't changing too much, I suppose generations will have to be swapped out at a fairly constant rate as well. But I suspect an assumption that this is the dominant or limiting factor in effecting change may be disregarding the capability of the human mind to adapt to circumstance. You yourself have just given some good examples of nimble thinking in, for example, WWII France. People's minds can change very quickly, if the conditions force the question in a clear way.

And those conditions don't only include forceful ones. I wrote in another post about nonviolent movements that also resulted in these spurts of progress between static times.

Don't aspirations follow Maslow's hierarchy of needs?


Needs come before wants. If a substantial chunk of the population you lead has unfulfilled needs, don't aspirations wants go on the back burner?

I was deliberately using both strong and weak definitions of "aspire," in a play on the word. Thanks for drawing attention to it, since it was indeed easy to miss.

As you know, "aspire" can indicate, reaching for a higher level, but also merely advancing toward a goal. One can advance toward a goal that is a basic need, or toward a goal that is at some higher, more visionary level. So I was saying that I wanted us to move forward, toward an objective. I do see that objective as a basic need (you're already aware that security of person is at the base of Maslow's hierarchy).

But I was also playing on the strong definition of aspire to indicate that sometimes, advancing even towards the most basic needs requires a visionary step. Sometimes you need to give up the comfortable home to move to a new land with more opportunity, to meet your basic needs better. And the advance to that goal does require both vision, and aspiration.

In this way, the word "aspire" conveys with one meaning the denotation, and with the other the connotation, of my message. Hence its selection, in spite of the possibility for confusion.

Sorry for the lack of clarity, wordplay can trip a reader up sometimes. I should try to be a little less flowery with my language.

I would agree, but my concerns relate around the disruptive effects of technology combined with base human nature.


Think about it. While the internet has provided a platform to facilitate human advancement, the majority of web traffic is about base human wants/needs in the form of porn. Not exactly Star Trek.


Technology is disrupting the sovereign state(as displayed by the rise of the non-state actor gaining some capabilities previously held only by sovereign states).


The democratisation of war fighting capabilities by individuals, groups, non-state actors means there are even more entities that all demand a vote(or is that hold the right of veto?) via threat of violence/disruption that will only increase in capability as we move forward.

Yes, the democratization of war is a threat that will increase due to technology. That is why we need to form community bonds that counteract those at a higher rate as well, and preferably with as large a circle of partners worldwide as possible.


Fortunately, the growth of democratic warfighting technology has been PRECEDED by the internet and the smartphone. Communication is the key to building the social networks that bind us, and at least that is in place. It isn't a guarantee, but at least it is a hope. And yes it is used for porn, and other base aspects of human nature. But even that doesn't mean it can't bind. I wonder whether it is easier, or harder, to conceive of a world where races and people mix freely, if a porn search turns up piles of interracial sex videos. Even the basest exchanges of culture are still cultural exchange, of a kind.


But before you begin to think it isn't exactly Star Trek, remember that one of the ways Star Trek DID really affect the social dialogue was by showing the world's first televised interracial kiss. Captain Kirk's promiscuity with other species was also notable, and arguably significant in changing the way people thought about interracial marriage.

I assume by helping the world advance implies a willingness to place the people of the planet above the people of your own country?


If so, doesn't that go against basic human selfishness I've focused on and tribal politics that have existed since we self organised?

NO! We have a real misunderstanding here.


My argument is that the best way to help OUR nation IS to consider all people to have the same rights we do. This minimizes intersocietal strife, and reduces the impetus for harm. That is not at all the same thing as saying that others are placed above our own. Only that where it is safe to do so, we should strive to find a way to include all others in the circle of civilized individuals.


This inevitably involves the gray world of unknown risks and difficult choices. But it is a matter of choosing a path to long-term safety FOR OUR NATION that requires us to help all others be safe as well. If they aren't safe, then they will see to it that we aren't either. And as we have said, they will very soon have the means to do so.

How often have tribal humans ever voluntarily given up near monopoly power voluntarily for the greater good?

Every single time a tribe of humans gets together and forms a government. We all, even today, live in our tribes. Republicans. Democrats. Religion A. Religion B. Fans of this or that sports team. All forms of tribal identity. Outsourced sense of self. And yet democracies exist all over the globe, in which people who are in control, when they lose an election, leave office for their replacement.


We have broken down the strength of tribalism considerably, and it is true that is not the case everywhere. But to doubt that it is possible is to deny the possibility of ANY elected government.

Isn't that a pleasant way of saying everyone(not really, but I think we agree on certain individuals/groups/NSAs/sovereign states) gets a veto?


How does that work.

No. We're not talking about folding up our defenses and giving up in the face of attacks. We're talking about acknowledging that the less attack attempts there are, the fewer are going to get through whatever defenses we put up.

The funny thing is I'm a pretty strong supporter of the US's 2nd Amendment(particularly in its role as unpaid "check/balance").


I've often heard/read the expression "An armed society is a polite society".


Maybe that's relevant here. But we are neither homogenous in our values nor aligned in our goals.


What about when, not if, we are armed with grey goo?

The problem is that research shows that the psychological effect of firearms is the opposite effect of your quote. When people are armed, they take more risks. They feel a little more bold, and so they venture down the dark street they otherwise wouldn't. More pertinent, they are also more likely to feel confident when someone bumps into them at the bar, and thus far more likely to escalate, rather than de-escalate the conflict into a brawl, and then a shooting.

Sometimes the sayings of our youth are just dead wrong. This one's actually been studied pretty extensively.


But the more important response doesn't rely on any research: a society that is only polite out of mortal terror isn't "polite" at all. Only threatened, and intimidated. It mimicks courtesy, while seething beneath the surface. A sufficiently intimidated population can become increasingly resentful of that state.


(Just to be clear, I'm not criticizing the 2nd amendment here, just the psychology, and by extension, extrapolation to national security.)

While I'm an optimist at heart, the disconnect between the velocity of technological advancement/democratisation and cultural and generational leadership inertial tells me that we are looking at 1-2 potentially quite dangerous decades of dangerous and completely unpredictable disruption.


I wouldn't have a clue as to how long until we see the benefits of quantum computing and genome breakthroughs.


But it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the disconnect it has and will increasingly have in the near future with human cultural inertia and hard coded behaviour.


I've had some conversations with folks over the years how software was quickly outpacing hardware(for common wants/needs). Then it seemed we entered a period where hardware outpaced software(outside of gaming).


What happens when technology outpaces humanity?


I'm not talking bad sci-fi where our web enabled refrigerators try to kill us.


But the far more likely reality of a backlash from cultures that drown in, rather than ride, the tsunami of technological change.

That's why our job is to keep them from drowning. The repercussions will not miss us if they do.

[LazyBoy]

Re: Paris Attack

Regarding no-go zones:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1421201170

[FrankL]

Re: Paris Attack

Regarding no-go zones:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28b_1421201170

They're being purposely dishonest there, by attacking the incorrect indication of the zones on the map by FOX rather than the perception that there are some really bad areas in or near big French cities.

[don]

Re: Paris Attack

Wolinski's Last Cartoon?

by Héctor Igarza

A little over a week ago we celebrated the advent of the new year, but not like the rest of the world. The three Cuban anti-terrorist heroes imprisoned in the United States had returned to our country several weeks before.

We then asked the honorary president of Cuba Sí France, the organization that for 16 years had led the struggle in France to free René, Fernando, Antonio, Ramón, and Gerardo, to draw a cartoon for postcards to be distributed by the Cuban Embassy in France for the celebration of the 57th year of the Revolution.

Georges Wolinski, one of the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists assassinated by terrorist bullets on the seventh of January, agreed to illustrate a text that we gave him. A paragraph written by José Martíin 1894 seemed appropriate for its continuing relevance: "An error in Cuba is an error in America, an error for all modern humanity. Whoever rises up with Cuba today rises up for all time."



The rest would be left up to Wolinski and his restless paintbrushes. At the bottom of the card he drew a cartoon of Martí based on the bust that he kept in his private studio.

Two young women, one French and the other Cuban, dance hand in hand, each holding her own flag in the other hand, as a sign of friendship of our two peoples. It's as if they were singing the anthems La Marseillaise and La Bayamesa.

An additional symbol: the colors of the two insignias held in the hands of the girls are the same red, white, and blue.



Four of the 12 victims murdered by the terrorist attacks against Charlie Hebdo on the seventh of January in Paris were irreverent cartoonists. Any religion, political party, or president could be targeted by its satires, which were sometimes cutting but in no case a reason for killing.

Stéphane Charbonnier, known as Charb, Charlie Hebdo editor since 2009, had also in the past made postcards for the Cuban Embassy in Paris. He was 47 years old. Among the first images shown on TV after his assassination was one showing the Cuban flag in his office. His column in the weekly was titled "Charb Does Not Like People," and at one point he wrote his own epitaph without knowing it: "I have neither wife nor a car, and I would rather die standing than live on my knees."

Jean Cabu, creator of the character of Grand Duduche, was one of the co-founders of Charlie Hebdo. He was 76 years old.

Bernard Verlhac, known as Tignous, was 58 years old. His cartoons also appeared in publications such as Marianneand Fluide Glacial.

Wolinski was a co-founder and veteran of the group. He was born in Tunis 80 years ago. His works began to be well known in May1968, the most revolutionary period in modern France. He was also published in Le Nouvel Observateur and Paris Matchamong others, and his drawings appeared in many publicity campaigns.

Among those murdered was Bernard Maris, 68 years old, another Charlie Hebdo co-founder and deputy director of the weekly till 2008, specializing in articles about economy. He continued to publish in Charlie Hebdo, often under the pseudonym of Uncle Bernard.

Charly Bouhana, acting president of Cuba Sí France, a close friend of Wolinski's and lover of social satires like him who jokes about death, is sure that the cartoon dedicated to the Cuban Revolution is the artist's last work.

Bouhana also tells me that we should still hold the luncheon originally planned to thank Wolinski for his postcard, at Chez Boboss, where we had enjoyed its good food and its proprietor's excellent service before. We could also consider it, says Charly, as his "last supper."

[LazyBoy]

Re: Paris Attack

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...nogo-zone-myth

In fact, France does maintain a list of 750 "sensitive" neighborhoods. Far from being considered "off limits" to authorities, they've been designated as priority areas for urban renewal and other forms of state aid.

Where did the story of the no-go zones come from? Daniel Pipes, a U.S. historian and political commentator, says he believes he was the first person to refer to disadvantaged French neighborhoods as no-go zones. In a 2006 article, he said the existence of the zones suggested "that the French state no longer has full control over its territory."

Pipes now says he was mistaken. In 2013, after traveling to several listed Paris neighborhoods and mainly immigrant and Muslim areas of five other European cities, he wrote: "For a visiting American, these areas are very mild, even dull. We who know the Bronx and Detroit expect urban hell in Europe, too, but there things look fine … hardly beautiful, but buildings are intact, greenery abounds, and order prevails. … Having this first-hand experience, I regret having called these areas no-go zones," he wrote.


In an e-mail to Bloomberg Businessweek today, Pipes says that a no-go zone "is a place where the government has lost control and cannot enforce the rule of law." There are, he now says, "no European countries with no-go zones."

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

Great article...although I think there's more than just a slim possibility of the final paragraph resembling our future.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...arari-sapiens?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

Great article...although I think there's more than just a slim possibility of the final paragraph resembling our future.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...arari-sapiens?

[jk]

Re: Paris Attack

Great article...although I think there's more than just a slim possibility of the final paragraph resembling our future.

http://www.theguardian.com/books/201...arari-sapiens?

good article indeed. thanks for posting. unfortunately i agree with your assessment of the possibility of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

good article indeed. thanks for posting. unfortunately i agree with your assessment of the possibility of terrorists obtaining weapons of mass destruction.

Although I would add outside of the Pakistani military's control of it's nukes(as I reckon North Korea's nukes are a tool of extortion rather than war) and with the unknown of Iran's theocracy and Nazi SS like IRGC, the greatest threat, in my opinion, would be "WMD theatre".

Maximum disruption, but minimal direct tangible damage....almost all the damage would be 2nd/3rd order effects I reckon.

I reckon the author Yuval Noah Harari really describes terrorism in a palatable and easy to understand format that I would go so far as to say it just about qualifies as required reading.

[astonas]

Re: Paris Attack

I reckon the author Yuval Noah Harari really describes terrorism in a palatable and easy to understand format that I would go so far as to say it just about qualifies as required reading.

I will certainly second this as well.

And while I do agree with you about the long-term impossibility of stopping mass destruction capabilities from getting out, it was another line of the conclusion that jumped out at me:

Yet what about nuclear terrorism or bioterrorism? What if the doomsday prophets are correct, and terrorist organisations will acquire weapons of mass destruction, which could cause widespread material damage on a par with conventional warfare? If and when this comes to pass, the state as we know it will become outdated. However, terrorism as we know it will also cease to exist, like a parasite that dies along with its host.

It caused me to ask: After the current incarnation of the definition of a state: what next?

What does it mean to be a state, in a world where the individual is hyper-empowered, for either constructive, or destructive, action?

The first nation to figure THAT one out, and to actively prepare for the new paradigm, will have a good chance of dominating the next era, for perhaps another two hundred years.

I've got my own thoughts, but I really do want to hear others' views before I share mine, since they may color people's original thoughts on the matter.

[vt]

Re: Paris Attack

The End Of Power

http://www.amazon.com/End-Power-Boar...asin=465065694

But hasn't is always been the individual working together with a few like minded companions to change history? The framers of the Declaration of Independence for good and Lenin and his henchmen with the perverted try to help the worker with communism. It's always been a small group of dedicated individuals that sometimes gain power over time.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Paris Attack

The End Of Power

http://www.amazon.com/End-Power-Boar...asin=465065694

But hasn't is always been the individual working together with a few like minded companions to change history? The framers of the Declaration of Independence for good and Lenin and his henchmen with the perverted try to help the worker with communism. It's always been a small group of dedicated individuals that sometimes gain power over time.

I've posted before how every revolution/insurgency/social movement is run by low single % percentage of the population and opposed by low single % percentage entrenched in power.

And with increasing % of population with reducing levels of support, then sympathy, then apathy for either side.

It's always small minorities until momentum is gained and until decisive victory is nearly guaranteed.

But what if the democratization of technologically enhanced and multiplied violence(opposition) and surveillance(incumbent) reduces the need for low single digit % of population to just a razor sharp tiny fraction of 1% to challenge or retain power?

Orwell's 1984 was proven to be fiction in 1984 via the collapse of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union a mere 5-7 years later.

The East German STASI surveillance state was suffocatingly unsustainable. Everyone was a watcher, watching, and being watched with not enough people left over to produce anything of economy value.

Then the time value of Moore's Law started to kick into turbo-supercharged high gear and has resurrected Orwell as a 20th century Nostradamus, simply optimistic in timeframe. Now the STASI State can be run out of an outsourced data centre.

Guy Fawkes tried to blow up the King and House of Lords over 400 years ago. And despite all the many changes made to mitigate risk of modern day Guy Fawkes', the same time value of Moore's Law is making it even easier, faster, cheaper.

So I reckon the only simple, common sense extrapolation that we might be able to make is that the minimum thresholds to gain or retain power(both sides of the coin) might shrink further, and possibly splinter.

So instead of binary, yin/yang of a closed sovereign system......maybe we should be looking at the inertial and partition of Belgium and the split of Czech and Slovak Republics as possible indicators?