Pete Clarke Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hi Joanne,
>
> Don't get me wrong - I am not saying that the
> European conquest of the Americas was anything
> other than a disaster for humanity. Actually,
> that's not entirely true; I think that some of the
> results (particularly the USA) may end up being
> greatly beneficial for us all but I'm not
> convinced that benefits come close to outweighing
> the cost.
It's VERY hard to calculate the pluses & minuses. For example, Native American crops supply most of the world's food, keeping billions from starvation. Native American medicines have saved hundreds of millions of lives.
But.... Native American crops & medicines have ALSO allowed overpopulation & the resulting environmental degradation. What we've seen is a clear pattern, repeated in all or most parts of the world..... increase food & decrease mortality, the population jumps dramatically BEFORE society adjusts to the fact that you're no longer losing most of your children to starvation & disease & the like. Currently, "Western" populations are DROPPING (have been for a century and a half or more), but despite major efforts the 3rd world hasn't been able to make the societal adjustments.
> However, what was lost is, in many respects, a
> great unknown. Potentially a huge amount of
> knowledge was lost for ever; whether that
> knowledge would have benefitted us as a species is
> an unknown. I want to emphasise that I'm not
> talking here about the direct human cost of the
> conquest - the simple fact of genocide (whether
> intentional or not) should never be subjected to
> any sort of cost/benefit analysis so I'm not
> discussing it in this context.
Yes, which is one reason that rather than focusing exclusively on what happened TO Native Americans, I brought up such things as ecological damage (are you aware of the economic impact of the Chestnut Blight alone? Of the world wide costs associated with exotic species introductions..... including pests & diseases affecting crops, wildlife, & plants? It's almost beyond conception, and getting worse every year).
> With regard to the post WWII arms race - I accept
> that the MAD policy may have prevented a third
> world war. However, we must go back to this being
> a great disaster for humanity. If the atomic bomb
> had not been developed then the superpower arms
> race would not necessarily have happened
& then we wouldn't have much of the technology we have now. COMPUTERS! SPACE AGE MATERIALS! PEACEFUL (energy, medical, imaging, etc) nuclear technologies. Most of our electronics. Miniaturization. GPS. Satellite imaging. The list is endless.
> (particularly if agreements between the USSR, UK
> and USA had been kept and the post war distrust
> avoided).
Couldn't have happened, the Soviets were ALREADY cheating BEFORE the bomb was developed. They NEVER intended to let "liberated" portions of Europe go free.... note the wartime massacre of the Polish army (considered a threat due to it's containing a large fraction of bourgeois & aristocratic individuals, highly trained & educated.... exactly the type of people who'd resist a Communist takeover). Note deliberate Soviet deception during the drive towards Berlin.... the agreement was for all allies to enter Berlin at the same time, Russia lied about it's troop positions, understating how much progress they made, so that the Allies slowed THEIR advance to let the Russians catch up.... with the result that the Russians invaded Berlin WELL ahead of the other Allies. Or didn't you ever wonder why "East Germany" was so much larger than "West Germany"...?
Right from the start, the entire Soviet ideology saw the capitalistic/democratic west as a threat that MUST be destroyed. Their entire ideology was based on the concept that communism was destined to take over the world, that it was the pinnacle of human social progress.
> THis is all "what if" - what if the USA
> and USSR had developed with peace-time economies.
> What more could the USA have achieved if it hadn't
> channeled massive amounts of GDP into arms
> development.
It would have achieved LESS. Wartime economies, arms races, all FUELED scientific research & massive government spending.... which kick started economies & scientific progress.
> What if communism had had a chance to
> develop without every penny being spent on
> missiles?
It would have spent every ruble on "spontaneous" guerilla movements & conventional arms instead. Remember, expansion & replacement of "lower" rungs on the ladder of social evolution was integral to it's existance.
> Could it have succeeded?
No.... communism was simply too repressive, and too economically inefficient to win out over democratic capitalism. No profit motive removes much of the drive for personal effort. A one party system stifles innovation & leads to corruption.
> What could the
> combined will of the two cold-war superpowers have
> achieved if they weren't both convinced they were
> going to destroy each other?
They'd have divvied up the rest of the world, turning it into marxist puppet states & banana republics?
> How would the
> Developing world be if the USA and USSR hadn't
> been forced to fight proxy wars to avoid an all
> out nuclear conflict?
Worse off, because the two superpowers would either have fought "all out conventional wars" (MUCH messier than proxy wars), OR.... if Marxist ideology had mutated to allow coexistance with capitalism..... they'd simply have exploited the rest of the world WITHOUT having to play nice for fear of the other kids joining the other team.
> That's my train of thought on this.
>
> Pete
And this was mine. Luckily, we'll never have to live through the alternative, since the bomb DID cause the cold war, modern technology, AND the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Kenuchelover.
