Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: michael97123 who wrote (35099)	3/17/2004 1:15:38 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793911

You cant even appease these guys. Yes, that is the problem with appeasement, isn't it? It doesn't work. One of the things we're also inclined to try is "live and let live." This also won't work with people who say "you love life but we love death." We can't live with them (and by "them" I mean Islamofascists, not Muslims in general) and they won't let us live without them. Western scientists (game theorists, economists, evolution biologists) seem to have concluded that the best evolutionary strategy is "tit for two tats" -- don't strike back on the first strike, because the first strike might have been an aberration, and striking back can be expensive in terms of lost life and property. This doesn't need to be followed, and shouldn't be followed, either, when it's clear that the first strike wasn't an aberration. The American way of responding (at least now under President Bush) is to respond with overwhelming force, and crush them to dust. This is actually a very good strategy if you happen to have overwhelming force at your disposal, as we do. This strategy, tit-for-tat, is good from an evolutionary point of view, but, as I said before, expensive. And it's really only effective if you are expecting the other side to cooperate. In our situation with the Islamofascists, we really cannot expect them to cooperate. So what is the best strategy according to evolutionary theory or game theory? Rolling over and playing dead, hoping they'll go away? That's what's going on in Spain, I guess we'll see how it works. Striking first and striking hard? This is the new Bush administration strategy, which seems as if it should be worthwhile, But I wonder if anyone has actually gamed this out to see how it works in the long term? I read somewhere that the way that Middle Easterners deal with fanatical young men in their families or communities is to marry them off, so that they have wives, children and responsibilities, which makes them less likely to want to kill or die -- but look at all the married terrorists who just use other young men to do their dirty work. There may not be a solution, only day to day maintenance, more or less, of the status quo.