It would have cost far more to subdue the natives than it would ever produce in revenue.
Maybe on the successful Earths, mass genocide is considered morally acceptable in the case that the country involved is an obvious failure, such as north Korea. Let us assume here that the the people in such a “pro genocide” earth still value human lives as we do, but they act in accordance with the view that failed states present such a bad risk to the rest of the world that in certain cases genocide is morally acceptable or even required. Disclaimer: the author of this comment does not necessarily condone such action.
Or alternatively, perhaps the successful Earths have a global government that considers the cost of conquering and subduing failed states is worth the long term reduction in existential risk.
Maybe on the successful Earths, mass genocide is acceptable in the case that the country involved is an obvious failure, such as north Korea.
This is a confusion of terms: “acceptable” is a cost-benefit calculation, and the cost of genocide is determined by human nature, by how much we value lives, independent among the Earths in this construction. If a certain variant of Earth considers genocide acceptable, it points to an epic failure of rationality (possibly due to something along the lines of scope insensitivity), and so can’t be “successful”.
If a certain variant of Earth considers genocide acceptable, it points to an epic failure of rationality
consider the cost in terms of lives lost versus the benefit in terms of reduced existential risk. Suppose, for example, that North Korea demonstrated the ability and intent to develop and deploy a genetically engineered supervirus in order to kill the entire population of the world; in this case I would consider it morally acceptable to decimate the population of that country in order to deal with the problem, if that really was the only option.
Whether genocide of unsubduable failed states is morally acceptable depends, I think, on just how bad a risk they are to the rest of the world.
there may well be. My suggestion of a world government that really bites the bullet and goes in and sorts out failed states the long, hard way is such an option.
Other third options—or n’th options are probably available. But it should be noted that there are a lot of failed states in the world, and the cases of proven success fall into the categories I have given, as far as I can see. America and australia were examples of genocide working very well. Japan and germany were examples of invasion followed by high-cost, long term investment working.
Africa is a living testament that the “do nothing” approach is not a good one.
Why are you jumping to genocide instead of just killing the people making the evil virus? What do the people have to do with the failed state?
(Edit) Oh, I hadn’t travelled far enough up the tree to see CronoDAS’s post. Still, a well targeted mass-destruction seems simpler than killing everyone.
Maybe on the successful Earths, mass genocide is considered morally acceptable in the case that the country involved is an obvious failure, such as north Korea. Let us assume here that the the people in such a “pro genocide” earth still value human lives as we do, but they act in accordance with the view that failed states present such a bad risk to the rest of the world that in certain cases genocide is morally acceptable or even required. Disclaimer: the author of this comment does not necessarily condone such action.
Or alternatively, perhaps the successful Earths have a global government that considers the cost of conquering and subduing failed states is worth the long term reduction in existential risk.
This is a confusion of terms: “acceptable” is a cost-benefit calculation, and the cost of genocide is determined by human nature, by how much we value lives, independent among the Earths in this construction. If a certain variant of Earth considers genocide acceptable, it points to an epic failure of rationality (possibly due to something along the lines of scope insensitivity), and so can’t be “successful”.
consider the cost in terms of lives lost versus the benefit in terms of reduced existential risk. Suppose, for example, that North Korea demonstrated the ability and intent to develop and deploy a genetically engineered supervirus in order to kill the entire population of the world; in this case I would consider it morally acceptable to decimate the population of that country in order to deal with the problem, if that really was the only option.
Whether genocide of unsubduable failed states is morally acceptable depends, I think, on just how bad a risk they are to the rest of the world.
I bet there is a third option, especially if you plan for disaster in advance.
there may well be. My suggestion of a world government that really bites the bullet and goes in and sorts out failed states the long, hard way is such an option.
Other third options—or n’th options are probably available. But it should be noted that there are a lot of failed states in the world, and the cases of proven success fall into the categories I have given, as far as I can see. America and australia were examples of genocide working very well. Japan and germany were examples of invasion followed by high-cost, long term investment working.
Africa is a living testament that the “do nothing” approach is not a good one.
Why are you jumping to genocide instead of just killing the people making the evil virus? What do the people have to do with the failed state?
(Edit) Oh, I hadn’t travelled far enough up the tree to see CronoDAS’s post. Still, a well targeted mass-destruction seems simpler than killing everyone.