We don’t talk that often about science on Coming Anarchy, but there are some commonalities with IR and current affairs. This latest post on Lifehacker pointed me to a very interesting project by the Edge Foundation called the World Question Center. The scoop: each year the Edge asks an intellectual, scientific or philosophical question and gets some of the world’s leading minds to write up answers to be published. Ongoing since 1998, some of the questions have included: What do you believe is true even though you cannot prove it? (2004); What is today’s most important unreported story? (1999); What questions have disappeared? (2000); and a question asked by George W. Bush in 2003, What are the pressing scientific issues for the nation and the world, and what is your advice on how I can begin to deal with them?
This year’s question is:
WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?
The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?
There are some interesting answers on the site, but I would like to ask our llittle community: In the field of international politics, what are the current “dangerous ideas”?
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « Call for justice!
- » US Navy Sailor admits to murdering Japanese civilian
COMMENTS / 26 COMMENTS
The Burden of Proof added these pithy words on Jan 05 06 at 11:08 amUneducated Scientists
A number of scientists was asked WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?... The most interesting aspect I noticed is their total lack of any serious education in politics and their banal thoughts on it: most of them are virulently egalitarian, in other words, “s…
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » Edge: What have you changed your mind about? added these pithy words on Jan 03 08 at 10:58 pm[...] P.S. – Here is last year’s question [...]
IJ added these pithy words on 04 Jan 06 at 8:03 pmIn for a penny. . . dangerous ideas in international politics? Some are being unearthed in the John Hopkins national seminar series: re-examining the principles of war. The presentation by Victor Corpus, while provocative, introduced a welcome perspective.
But a debate on how to prevent large-scale conflict would probably need another series – the problem is finding an organisation with sufficient independence and credibility to host such a potentially dangerous series. As for the venue, Laputa is a possibility.
Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace added these pithy words on 05 Jan 06 at 2:48 amI think the international energy supply fits the “dangerous idea” motif ““ we really don’t know what the future holds, either how much oil is available, or whether the producers will continue to supply the world at the pace demanded by consumers. China and India will want to consume more than the US in a short while ““ and it is not at all clear where it will all come from. Both optimism and pessimism can be justified, and both are potentially dangerous in international terms”¦.
Jeff Medcalf added these pithy words on 05 Jan 06 at 3:10 amGravity does not actually exist. The only reason scientific theories require “dark energy” and “dark matter” that cannot be detected and have no extrinsic effects is because our observations don’t match our theory of gravity unless you throw in invisible, undetectable things with no side effects.
(While this doesn’t matter in the real world, because our theory of gravity works very well under local conditions, if gravitational theory were wrong it would undermine virtually everything we know about the age and state of the universe at large. Which is about what Copernicus did.)
IJ added these pithy words on 05 Jan 06 at 11:42 amA solution to international energy supply might indeed be a dangerous idea. What has the seminar series at John Hopkins offered? Robert Kaplan made some very interesting comments. He ventured that China was obsessed with its energy needs and keeping sea lanes open for its vital supplies. Presumably because effective international arbitration is still absent, he said China doesn’t trust the US or India to keep the lanes open. Moreover, the experience with Unocal has soured China’s view of the administration of the ‘global’ economy.
Kaplan also suggested that the US nation will not remain top dog as long as the media promote a world view, rather than a US view.
davesgonechina added these pithy words on 05 Jan 06 at 8:00 pmI think Steven Pinker’s response has serious IR implications. Ideas in developmental biology and evolutionary psychology about the biological determinants of human nature may force radical reassessments of political theory. After all, the Declaration of Independence says “all men are created equal”. What effects will we see as biology starts telling us how we aren’t?
Jing added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 1:03 amegh is CA eating responses? I tried to post Daves genetics arguement yesterday and it didn’t show. Just now I tried to post again and it ate that too.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 2:37 amYes, unfortunately there seems to be some problems with responses. This has cropped up a number of times, and I apologize to all those that have fallen victim to the great maw of the Comment Form. In the next few days I will be upgrading WordPress to 2.0, which might fix the problem (or not). If you have problems you can always contact us with your response and we can post it from the backend for you.
davesgonechina added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 5:08 amHope you fix it, I look forward to discussing this with Jing.
Mi-Hwa added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 8:16 amA dangerous idea in international politics is the Bush Administration’s doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against other nations, including nuclear strikes. This option allows the President to attack without getting authorization from Congress. Currently, Iran and North Korea are possible candidates for pre-emptive strikes. Other countries like China and Russia could also be targets in the future. This doctrine makes the US a big bully to the rest of the world.
Other dangerous ideas include American attempts to force regime change and bring democracy by force. Iraq is a prime example of the dangerous consequences of such actions.
IJ added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 12:19 pmOn Iran, Stratfor reported early last month:
>U.N. nuclear watchdog chief Mohamed ElBaradei on Dec. 6 expressed optimism that the controversy surrounding Iran’s nuclear program would be resolved by next year. ElBaradei’s comments, together with a host of other recent developments, point to a growing consensus within the international communityacknowledging that Iran will have access to nuclear technology. This emerging scenario has forced the United States to consider options other than a referral to the U.N. Security Council, and Israel to seek means other than military strikes to contain Iran.Israeli Chief of Staff Gen. Dan Halutz on Dec. 29 ruled out the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against Iranian nuclear facilities in the near future, saying Tehran poses no threat to Israel as long as it does not possess nuclear weapons. Halutz said he does not believe the Iranians will complete the production of a nuclear weapon “before the start of the next decade.”
Mi-Hwa added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 3:34 pmIJ ’s assessment of Iran is extremely rosy. Recent news stories describe a more desperate situation. For example, check out the recent Asia Times Online.
Iran has snubbed a meeting with IAEA and is resuming nuclear-fuel research. A highly credible intelligence report that came out recently said that Iran is secretly trying to acquire nuclear weapons technology and know-how from North Korea, Russia, and Pakistan. Some experts think that Iran is only a few months away from building a nuclear weapon, and is also working on ballistic missiles.
Consequently, Isreal is supposed to have set March as the deadline for a diplomatic solution, before it’s too late. Considering how Iran is forestalling negotiations, it’s highly unlikely that the March deadline can be met. Israel has recently acquired bunker busting bombs from the US, and a pre-emptive strike is definitely possible after March. The hardliners in the Bush Administration may very well support Israel in this endeavor. They think it is dangerous to let a crazy leader like Ahmadinejad have nuclear weapons.
IJ added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 4:32 pmThanks for the reference. An opinion piece on Iran, the EU, US and Israel appears in today’s Asia Times Online.
The writer thinks the US should give international diplomacy a chance. However a bigger problem seems to be Israel’s insistence that Iran should not possess nuclear weapons too.
Younghusband added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 6:50 pmOn a more general note, I think the belief that the world is becoming more peaceful is dangerous optimism and historically short-sighted.
Jeff Medcalf added these pithy words on 06 Jan 06 at 10:29 pmMi-Hwa: a quick correction. There is nothing in the President’s policy of preemption that allows the President to act without Congressional authorization. While I disagree with the President, and every previous President of which I am aware, all Presidents have held that the President’s authority as Commander in Chief allows him to take military action without a Congressional declaration of war so long as he believes the country to be endangered.
Congress’ corrective power is to impeach a President who does so (not that the Congress ever will, given examples like Kosovo (Clinton) and Panama (Bush) – actually, Panama is a bad example since Panama declared war on the US before we invaded).
So to the extent that the President has power to attack without Congressional action prior to the event, such power exists whether or not a policy of preemption is in place.
IJ added these pithy words on 07 Jan 06 at 4:31 pmA solution to international energy supply is a dangerous idea.
US Senator Lieberman agrees with ARW above: “Competing energy needs are the greatest source of potential conflict between the United States and China. . . the United States and China must work together to meet both countries’ energy needs.”
Getting deeper into dangerous territory, the Senator also recommended that the United States transform its transportation system to one that uses alternative sources of energy. France is aiming to run its public transport system on alternative fuels within 20 years.
Pavlov3 added these pithy words on 09 Jan 06 at 4:38 amWater, water, water. What will China/fill in x-country do when they cannot meet the water needs of their people. Smells like war to me. (Since everyone jumped on energy)
IJ added these pithy words on 09 Jan 06 at 9:45 amResource Wars suggests that direction from the centre is necessary. An extension at the United Nations of the recently approved R2P doctrine?
“Klare analyzes the most likely cause of war in the century just begun: demand by rapidly growing populations for scarce resources. An introductory chapter sets the scene, laying out the complexities of rapidly increasing demand as the world industrializes, the concentration of resources in unstable states and the competing claims to ownership of resources by neighboring states. Succeeding chapters look more closely at the potential for conflict over oil in the Persian Gulf and in the Caspian and South China Seas, over water in the Nile Basin and other multinational river systems and over timber, gems and minerals from Borneo to Sierra Leone.”
Mi-Hwa added these pithy words on 09 Jan 06 at 1:12 pmIf China runs out of drinking water, they can always turn to desalination of sea water. Some Middle Eastern countries are already doing that. Also, China can import water. Lack of water does not mean China has to go to war.
Curzon added these pithy words on 09 Jan 06 at 1:45 pmI tend to agree with Gabriel’s post trackbacked above—the most dangerous thing is genius scientists who have no idea what politics and human nature are about.
Elizabeth added these pithy words on 14 Jan 06 at 2:14 pmHi. Just want to let you all know I’m starting a blog for people to post all dangerous ideas. It’s at http://dangerousideas.blogsome.com.
Caneel added these pithy words on 14 Jan 06 at 8:19 pmThe most dangerous idea: Relativism…
Caneel added these pithy words on 15 Jan 06 at 5:48 amVirtue?
Look at Europe. In many ways, Europe is a case study in relativism, no? The natural end-state is the death of the culture so afflicted…
Mi-Hwa added these pithy words on 15 Jan 06 at 10:03 amI agree with Caneel. Relativism leads to social degeneration. I believe that some things are universal absolutes, such as human rights for everyone.
