James, I don't know whether we care. Certainly not the whole of society but some people care, I think. There is not doubt we leave some things on the table, as you note. But, i think there is massive misunderstanding that CAPT Kirk or Jean Luc Picard are not here: we cannot just 'make it so'. Instruments are fundamentally misunderstood, esp by people who ought know better. Another topic to tease out. Thanks.
This piece illustrates nicely the title mantra of your Substack: Actions Have
Consequences. Consequences follow actions and at the time of decision some are not realized and even those taken into account are predictions, not facts. So, as you wrote, it is hard, really hard to get it right; to set in motion a greater weight of “good” consequences than “bad” ones.
Thoughtful. And certainly on point as to redlines and asserting them. We do this repeatedly to our detriment, unwilling or unable to enforce them, but quick to elaborate them, related to human rights, or use of particular weapons, or attacking particular places or peoples. I do wonder if we push them aside for our first two articulated values more often than not, and if perhaps we should acknowledge those will likely always be our defaults. Protecting the homeland. Ensuring the wellbeing of our citizenry. Those are important. But they do leave some things on the table - human rights in Xinjiang for Uighurs, protecting Syrians, citizens of Hong Kong who were supposed to be under a different system than mainland China, and so many more - are we responsible for them? Probably not. Our rhetoric suggests we care, though. But, do we? Because I don't see it in Saudi Arabia. Nor in a variety of other spaces we project that we do.
My point entirely. Thank you!
James, I don't know whether we care. Certainly not the whole of society but some people care, I think. There is not doubt we leave some things on the table, as you note. But, i think there is massive misunderstanding that CAPT Kirk or Jean Luc Picard are not here: we cannot just 'make it so'. Instruments are fundamentally misunderstood, esp by people who ought know better. Another topic to tease out. Thanks.
This piece illustrates nicely the title mantra of your Substack: Actions Have
Consequences. Consequences follow actions and at the time of decision some are not realized and even those taken into account are predictions, not facts. So, as you wrote, it is hard, really hard to get it right; to set in motion a greater weight of “good” consequences than “bad” ones.
Thoughtful. And certainly on point as to redlines and asserting them. We do this repeatedly to our detriment, unwilling or unable to enforce them, but quick to elaborate them, related to human rights, or use of particular weapons, or attacking particular places or peoples. I do wonder if we push them aside for our first two articulated values more often than not, and if perhaps we should acknowledge those will likely always be our defaults. Protecting the homeland. Ensuring the wellbeing of our citizenry. Those are important. But they do leave some things on the table - human rights in Xinjiang for Uighurs, protecting Syrians, citizens of Hong Kong who were supposed to be under a different system than mainland China, and so many more - are we responsible for them? Probably not. Our rhetoric suggests we care, though. But, do we? Because I don't see it in Saudi Arabia. Nor in a variety of other spaces we project that we do.