The immense risks and appalling costs to humanity of excessive military, intelligence, and security expenditures-- and how to reduce both

Civilization's best defensive measures against war, terrorism, technological stagnation, and economic ruin

A Presentation of jrm&aFLUX


by J.R. Mooneyham
_______This page last updated on or about 10-27-03_______
(Free JavaScripts provided by The JavaScript Source)

Please help us keep this site online

Back to Civilization's best defensive measures master list...




(Translate this page)

| ESPAÑOL | FRANÇAIS | DEUTSCH |
| ITALIANO | NORSK | PORTUGUÊS |

(above translations provided by FreeTranslation.com)

(Translate this site)

First aid for broken links


| Search this site |
| Site map | Site author | Site store |
>>> | Latest site updates | <<<

| Access Google's cache of this site |


Alternative (mirror site) links
| Translate this site |
| Site search | Site map | Site author |
| Access Google's cache of this site |


Costs and risks of war table of contents


First of all, war, if not the ultimate human evil, must rank very near it.

"War...is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children."

— from an Oslo, Norway speech by former President Jimmy Carter, after receiving the Nobel Peace Prize.

-- Quote of the Day; ABC news; found on or about 12-11-02

Risks and costs contents


Terrorism is at least somewhat preferable to war

Given a choice of experiencing war or terrorism, and being informed of all the real costs and risks involved for everyone of both, it's likely the vast majority of people would choose to experience random bouts of terrorism rather than war.

Are successful war mongers worse than successful terrorists? Yes-- if judgment is to be based on the numbers of dead and wounded incurred by war as opposed to terrorism throughout history. The numbers still cast war in a worse light than terrorism even if all the combatant casualties are removed from the numbers, leaving only deaths and injuries involving innocent civilian men, women, and children.

Indeed, it might be difficult to find very many true modern wars at all which killed and injured as few people as the terrorist attacks of 9-11-01 on America.

I use the "modern" qualification because the further back into antiquity you go, the easier it'll be to find wars which had relatively few casualties, simply because the human population was much smaller then, the armies far fewer in number of soldiers, the weapons were often less lethal, etc., etc.

Speaking only of American military casualties in wars of the 20th century, there were 58,000 in Vietnam, 54,000 in Korea, 405,000 in WW II, and 116,000 in WW I. The total human casualties of these conflicts were much, much larger, with the total death toll for World Wars I and II combined, including combatants from all sides, and civilians, and deaths caused directly and indirectly by the conflicts, estimated to be around 36 million.

Speaking of non-American casualties in more recent conflicts, some 200,000+ Iraqis are estimated to have lost their lives due to the 1991 Persian Gulf war. And the American toll of that war? 8,000 Gulf War vets have died, and over 100,000 suffer from Gulf War syndrome today.

By contrast, the death toll from 9-11-01 in America-- one of the most 'successful' terrorist attacks in history-- stands at around 3000.

-- 'Minimal' U.S. Combat Death Toll Seen in Iraq War By Will Dunham; January 05, 2003; Reuters

"We now have it in our power to have a magnitude-8 or -9 war...After a war of magnitude 9.8, no one would say anything at all." [because everyone would be dead]

-- Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Brian Hayes; Computing Science; American Scientist; January-February, 2002

There are 100,000+ victims of Gulf War syndrome.

-- Fearing the Worst By Dean Schabner; ABC News; found on or about October 24, 2003

-- 2 of 5 Gulf War vets on disability; January 25, 2003; WorldNetDaily.com

-- The 220,00 Casualties No One Speaks About (by Stanley Heller) - Media Monitors Network; found on or about 10-24-03.

As many as 205,000 Iraqis died as a result of 1991 Persian Gulf war.

-- FIRST IRAQ WAR BODY-COUNT UPDATE by Rob Schaap; blogorrhoea; found on or about February 13, 2003; citing Toting the Casualties of War; Edited by Douglas Harbrecht; Businessweek; FEBRUARY 6, 2003

Of course, when I say terrorism here, I'm referring to terrorism perpetrated by relatively small groups like Al Qaeda rather than full-blown nation-states. In some cases though, I must admit it can be difficult to discern between the two, except by the sheer scale of the killings. The 'cold war' proxy fights between the USA and Soviet Union generated enormous numbers of casualties over many years and in many locales, as well as encouraged various outbreaks of independent anarchy, mass murder, and ethnic cleansing across the globe. In many cases the USA and USSR themselves trained or advised and armed terrorists or so called cold war 'freedom fighters'-- such as Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, whom were both supported by America at various times (bin Laden to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan, Hussein to fight against Khomeni-led Iran).

If only the financial costs are considered, war still comes out looking much worse than terrorism in virtually all comparisions. For often anywhere from tens of thousands to millions of people are displaced by war, often losing everything they own as well. The damage and destruction to industry and public infrastructure is also usually catastrophic in economic terms for locals.

So who's worse? Terrorists or war mongers? As of early 2003 the answer seems crystal clear.

From 2-25-03 jrm&aFLUX newz&viewz by J.R. Mooneyham

Risks and costs contents


As our technologies advance, the risk that war will drive humanity itself to extinction may rise exponentially

From everything we know as of early 2003, it appears that most (perhaps all) the technological civilizations which ever developed in our galaxy before us suffered extinction or irrevocable collapse not long after their equivalent of our own 1900 AD.

To see the full justification for this statement please examine the study found here, and this essay.

If it is true that all or most who preceded us made basically the same mistake(s) which led to their end, and that they were not that much different from us in many of the ways which matter most, then it is likely that we will do the same.

That is, by far the most likely path we will take over coming decades will be one which leads to our own destruction.

And what would that path be? What course is humanity most prone to follow in the years to come? The most logical answer is the same one we've followed over all of recorded history: Ever grander and more spectacular cycles of civilization building and technological advances, punctuated by horrific wars powered by ever more terrible weapons and greater loss of life. Our different expressions of civilization will rise, prosper, mercilously kill or conquer others, then be killed or conquered in their turn-- just as occured in the past, over and over again.

But wait. Might not our weapons be reaching such an awesome level of destructive power as to soon be capable of finishing off all humanity in one God-like sweep of the globe?

Yes. The power of total annihilation of our race is within our reach, at last. And it will definitely be firmly within our grasp long, long before any significant number of us could escape the planet to survive indefinitely on our own in space.

"We now have it in our power to have a magnitude-8 or -9 war...After a war of magnitude 9.8, no one would say anything at all [because everyone would be dead]"

-- Statistics of Deadly Quarrels by Brian Hayes; Computing Science; American Scientist; January-February, 2002

-- Humans Doomed Without Space Colonies, Says Hawking; Yahoo! Science Headlines; October 15, 2001

"We are on the cusp of the further perfection of extreme evil"
-- Sun scientist Bill Joy, WIRED April 2000

"This century may be a defining moment for the cosmos. If humans do not destroy themselves they may spread beyond the earth into a universe that could last almost forever."

-- The science of eternity by Martin Rees; www.prospect-magazine.co.uk; January 2002

So if we continue upon our most likely course (that implied by the historical record), we'll soon be simply dust again; the stuff from which we came. If each of us continues to treat our cousins in other nations as vicious, predatory competitors at best, and outright mortal enemies (or slaves or animals) at worst, then soon the game will be over, and we'll all have lost.

The most likely path we'll take-- the easiest, simplest, most instinctive path-- the path of nationalism, lump-in-the-throat, unquestioning patriotism, ruthless, no holds barred economic competition and military aggression, conflict, and intimidation-- the path of religious, ethnic, and other discrimination and conflict-- the 'every man for himself' route-- will lead us only to utter and complete self-destruction.

"...the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

-- Hermann Goering, Hitler's chosen successor for ruling Nazi Germany during World War II; quote from the Nuremberg Trials 1945-1946

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."

-- Theodore Roosevelt, US Republican president, 1918

-- http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm

If we are to have any chance to survive the coming decades, we will have to radically reform our behavior-- and in ways we've never been able to do in the past.

Sure, we've changed a lot before when necessary to our survival: we learned how to stand up, wield tools, speak, start fires, invent things like the wheel, the plow, and more.

But we never ever stopped killing. Never suppressed our appetite for blood and violence, for very long. Never stopped seizing what we wanted, when and where we possessed the means. Never stopped lying and deceiving. Never learned to love our whole species and our planet as the family they truly are.

And yet we must now do all these things, or meet our end-- perhaps within this very generation.

"So many of our problems revolve around our capacity to cooperate on a global scale, which we've never done before in the history of the world. We have to do the things we've never done before."

-- Economist Jeffrey D. Sachs, director of Columbia University's Earth Institute

-- Science to Save the World By David Appell; Scientific American; December 16, 2002

According to the silence in the heavens, we probably won't do it. Perhaps no one ever has. Is this how all so-called intelligent life in the universe ends up? Committing suicide because, when all is said and done, we can't overcome our most primitive impulses?

As of 2000 many scientists are becoming concerned at the seemingly glaring lack of results from ongoing searches for extraterrestrial intelligence. Something seems amiss.

-- Scientific American: NO ALIEN RESPONSE: July 2000

-- Is Humanity Destined to Self-Destruct? by Lynton Keith Caldwell; August, 1999; derived from a lecture given at the Eighteenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Polics and the Life Sciences, September 4, 1998, Boston; a previous version seen in the journal Politics and Life Sciences, Volume 8, Number 1, March, 1999

-- Extinction expert fears for humans; By CHRISTENE MEYERS Billings Gazette/montanaforum.com; November 7, 2002 (link#1) and link#2 to same item

-- Scientific American August 2002 issue: Why ET Hasn't Called By Michael Shermer

-- Humans Doomed Without Space Colonies, Says Hawking; Yahoo! Science Headlines; October 15, 2001


At this stage in our evolution, war might still be unavoidable at times, despite our best efforts-- and so suitable preparation for same, only prudent. But what are the pros and cons of war preparation, and how might we optimize the balance between the two? Obtain the most benefit, for the least cost and risk?

Explicitly listing all the various pros and cons of such expenditures would seem a good first step towards determining an optimal balance in such matters

The pros

There's really only two pros: One, the host society may often enjoy overwhelming military superiority should an old-fashioned war involving it break out, or some other nation is foolish enough to invade or attack the host. And two, deterrence (such as may have prevented both the USA and USSR from ever engaging in all out nuclear war during the Cold war). That's it for the clear and obvious pros.

Some would list as a pro the often accelerated advances in military-related technology niches which may be spawned by lavish expenditures in this area. However, in regards to ever offering net benefits to society-at-large, such advances are far from certain in their value.

First of all, military technologies tend to be focused on generating ever faster, easier, and cheaper ways to kill people or increase their suffering and rates of incapacitation, or destroy property and infrastructure of various sorts. They might often be meant to greatly increase uncertainty and mistakes among a targeted group as well. All these pursuits, where successful, may basically reduce significantly the world's economic productivity and efficiency, at least in the short run-- and sometimes indefinitely. Reducing global productivity and efficiency can rarely be classified as a net positive for anyone. Add in the human suffering and loss of life typically involved in such conflicts as well, and the negative aspects of such actions (as opposed to any positives) will usually only grow.

Often military technologies will end up being used both purposefully and accidentally against innocent civilians, by the military which developed them, as well as militaries which manage to procure the technologies legally or illegally from the original owner. Even civilians and soldiers of the nation which originally develops such technologies may often be harmed by same in the research and development phase prior to actual deployment, and long afterwards by toxic wastes created as a byproduct of the system, either in manufacturing or actual battlefield deployment. Beyond this, both groups may face higher taxes, lower incomes, fewer government services, and higher interest rates in future decades due to the government debts incurred to develop, manufacture, and deploy the systems, plus whatever bills come due regarding the safe disposal of related dangerous materials long after the system itself has been declared obsolete, or outlawed by more enlightened parties or times.

Then there's the often incalculable costs to societies both regionally and globally of escalation of military technologies and tensions among competing nations, brought about by what are perceived as unjustifiable increases in such spending by one or more parties. Such escalations in modern times not only raise the absolute risk of global human extinction, but also reduce the potential living standards of virtually everyone, relative to what they might be in the absence of such unproductive spending and debt growth.

Excessive military spending also reduces the financial capability of a given nation to cope with unexpected natural or man-made disasters and events of many other kinds-- and so represent a real threat to the security of the very nation making such expenditures. Too, once a nation's leaders find themselves in such a bind of their own making, they may be tempted to distract their citizenry with ill-advised and/or openly belligerent military adventures against other nations-- after all, often their bloated military will be sitting around idling otherwise, of no particular use to anyone, and ever more likely over time to draw the ire of citizens as they realize how spending on that military has worsened their plight in other matters.

And what if terrorists or other criminals manage to gain control of such weapons systems for themselves? In that case such technology may pose more of a (negative) wild card for human destiny than it does even in the hands of established governments and mainstream political parties. But many of today's weapons of mass destruction couldn't exist in the first place without past and present government-sponsered programs to design and build them. After stockpiling such weapons, governments often are lax in protecting them from theft, and even give them away at times to known terrorists, so long as those terrorists are fighting that government's enemies. Of course, there's little to prevent those same terrorists or others from using those giveaway weapons against their own creator or wholly uninvolved third parties at some later time.

In light of all the above, it would be very difficult indeed to derive a wholly positive net benefit from excessive military spending in the area of technology advances-- or, for that matter, many other fields as well.

Now what about the cons?

Risks and costs contents


The cons

Defense, intelligence, and security spending all tend to exert downward pressures on the living standards of average citizens, as such spending is not as efficient or productive as other types of expenditures, in general

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."

-- US President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1953

-- Cost of War; found on or about 4-14-03

Average living standards for civilians in a given military, intelligence, or security agency's host nation will by necessity be lower than they would be with less emphasis on such spending. For such spending translates to a slower pace of consumer technology innovations (and so less entrepreneurial opportunity and competition among business, which spell higher consumer costs and fewer choices), lower average wages, fewer (and more expensive) healthcare benefits, smaller retirement or pension checks, perhaps a third to a half of the host country's population doing without health insurance entirely, fewer college scholarships and less financial support overall for education at all levels, but especially higher education (thereby helping keep the poor poor, and over time rendering the bulk of the voting electorate ever dumber and more vulnerable to harmful manipulation by a more educated elite or sophistocated mass media).

The reason for the slower technological innovation in general for consumers than would otherwise be the case, is a larger number of scientists and engineers will be kept busy figuring out new and better ways of killing people (or making their lives harder) rather than keeping them alive, or making their lives easier.

These reductions in consumer innovation, combined with the losses in educational and economic opportunity stemming from the government's reduced flexibility in coping with economic downturns and unanticipated disasters (and the fewer entrepreneuial opportunities created), will over many years also be a drag on job maintenance and creation in the host nation, as it renders it less competitive with other countries than it might otherwise be. If this drag gets too large (or other nations successfully increase their own innovation rates and educational and economic opportunities significantly, relative to the host), the host nation may even find itself suffering mounting budget deficits, high interest rates, high unemployment, and recession or depression at the same time other states are doing considerably better by comparison. The impact of defense spending also generally depresses wages in the private sector, relative to what such income levels might be with less defense spending (because less consumer market innovation means less consumer market productivity, thereby forcing people to work harder to make less money than might be the case in a competing nation with lower per capita defense spending, and all other factors being equal. Less consumer market innovation may also spell less consumer demand, thereby hurting potential economic performance in another fashion).

But of course, in the real world 'all other factors' can never be truly equal. That is, the host nation might enjoy other facets of its constitution or resources which are superior to competitors and so help make up for some of the economic drag its excessive military expenditures place upon it. So long as there's a sufficient number and scale of such mitigating factors in its favor, the host nation may even do better than many competitors in some ways besides militarily. But still the host will not prosper as much as it would with lower levels of military spending. For it's a simple economic fact that military spending is not as efficient or productive as other types of expenditures in general, and so must act as an absolute drag on economic growth and progress, compared to what would occur in its absence.

We've already covered some pretty hefty 'cons' or downsides regarding excessive defense spending here. But the list goes on and on.

Risks and costs contents


A breeding ground for future violent criminals and terrorists

The bigger and deadlier your armed forces, the more folks you've essentially trained to be war-like and efficient killers, and take calculated (and sometimes extreme) risks-- providing maybe hundreds or thousands (or even millions) of folks with skills and attitudes which can now or later be turned against you in war, crime, or terrorism. Even in terms of successive generations. The Oklahoma bombing and more recent Washington area sniper cases in the US are just a few examples of such home-grown terrorists.

Increasing the likelihood of spousal and child abuse, and brain damaged (and/or criminal) future generations

Note that increasing the tendency of folks to be aggressive and violent, and making even their smallest reflexive movements in a situation possibly lethal or the cause of serious injury to others, likely makes for significant increases in spousal and child abuse, even if only due to accidents or unfortunate circumstances within a family. Regardless of how such injuries or intimidation come about, they too add to a largely as yet unaccounted for cost in terms of the true price a society pays to maintain an excessively large and powerful military force.

-- Sacks is right: all violence corrupts by Michael Harris; August 28, 2002; The Guardian

-- Study links combat, domestic violence By Pamela Hess; 7/29/2002; UPI

-- Fighting Wars Ups Risk of Psychological Problems By Suzanne Rostler; Reuters Health; January 4 2002; citing American Journal of Public Health 2002;92:59-63

Some of the most common afflictions among US servicemen include substance abuse and depression.

-- Mental Disorders Key Health Problems in Military; Yahoo!/Reuters Health; Sep 20, 2002; citing American Journal of Psychiatry 2002;159:1576-1583

What does military training do? Train personnel to repress or rechannel their emotions (as free emotions can get in the way of efficient killing and carrying out troublesome orders, among other things). Such training is usually executed via various forms and degrees of intimidation, or threats of same. Turns out these aspects of military training are well suited for increasing the likelihood a man will beat his wife and kids-- at least according to the research study cited below.

-- Domestic Violence Often Comes From Men Who Repress Emotions, Feel Threatened, Study Finds by Jeff Grabmeier, (614) 292-8457; Grabmeier.1@osu.edu; Contact: Kristi Williams, (614) 688-3207; Williams.2339@sociology.osu.edu; 12/9/02

-- Domestic violence causes long-term health consequences for women; EurekAlert; 3-Jun-2002; Contact: Ming Tai; mtai@jhmi.edu; 443-287-2902; Johns Hopkins Medical Institutions

-- Victims of child abuse may have hidden head injuries; 2-Jun-2003; Contact: Erin McDermott; McDermotte@email.chop.edu; 215-590-7429; Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia

-- Children not spanked fare better in school, marriage

-- Criminality linked to early abuse and genes by Emma Young; 01 August 02; New Scientist

-- Parents' risky behavior rubs off on children; EurekAlert; 30-Aug-2002; Contact: Esther Wilder; eisabellewilder@aol.com; 718-960-1128; Center for the Advancement of Health

-- Exposure to violence between parents significantly increases risk for adult partner violence; 24-Jul-2003; Contact: David Partenheimer; dpartenheimer@apa.org; 202-336-5706; American Psychological Association

-- Snipers Made Same Point as Bin LadenBy Ron Kampeas; The Associated Press/ABC News; found on or about October 24, 2003

-- US media gripped by sniper obsession By Kevin Anderson; BBC; 23 October, 2002

-- Snipers: More Than Just Washington by J.J. Johnson; 10.19.02; sierratimes.com

Risks and costs contents


Such military training/preparation may also exacerbate otherwise latent mental illness in recruits-- perhaps rendering dangerous to society and themselves folks who might otherwise have led more normal, peaceful, and productive lives.

-- US army stunned by spate of murders at special forces' base By Andrew Buncombe; 02 August 2002; Independent

-- Soldier husbands suspected in deaths; MSNBC

-- Army Culture, Separation Cited In U.S. Base Killings

-- Third Bragg soldier took malaria drug -- The Washington Times

-- Popular malaria drug may lead to suicide; May 05 2003; Popular malaria drug may lead to suicide was originally published on page 4 of The Mercury on 05 May 2003

"Spate of spousal abuses on US military bases may be due to use of Lariam in soldiers serving in Afghanistan"

-- Lariam (mefloquine) linked to psychotic episodes, depression, suicide; found on or about 10-24-03; drugintel.com

-- Wife beating plagues U.S. military; MSNBC

-- Suicides soaring among SDF members

"We hear war called murder. It is not; its suicide."

-- Ramsay MacDonald, May 4th 1930"

-- THE RAGES OF WAR An Inside Look at Suicide Among Combat Soldiers Researched by Kyla Urhausen; Research in the 21st Century; Fall Quarter 2002

-- US army admits Iraq suicides [23jul03]; Herald Sun; found on or about 10-24-03

-- Military training links string of serial killers By DOUG SAUNDERS; The Globe and Mail; October 25, 2002 – Page A5

Risks and costs contents


Merely researching and developing weapons often poses substantial costs and risks to a population-- especially where government and business are not held accountable

Even just developing, testing, and assembling things like nuclear and biochemical weapons is dangerous, generating huge numbers of fatalities, cancers, and injuries-- even if the weapons are never once used in anger. This is partly so because even the governments of so-called democratic nations seem to frequently show little regard for public health in their decisions.

Many nations worldwide have conducted a large number of open-air nuclear weapons tests since WWII. The fall out from all these tests has been sickening and killing civilians worldwide ever since by way of increased cancers and other ills. One study focusing only on the public health effects of tests conducted by the US and a few other nations between 1951 and 1963 (and totally ignoring health effects on the workforces engaged in mining radioactives or building the weapons, or people living close to weapons factories), showed that virtually anyone who's lived in the US since 1951 has been exposed to radioactive fallout in varying amounts. 15,000 US citizens have died as one result, and at minimum another 80,000 will likely contract cancer from the effects in years to come. Some of the fallout from tests which took place decades ago continues to circle the globe.

The study did not consider the effects of US (and other nations) testing which continued on between 1963 and late 1993.

Circa 2002 US leadership was showing interest in starting nuclear weapons testing anew in the future, regardless of its effects on the health of Americans and other peoples.

-- Testing has killed thousands, a new study shows By Jeffrey St. Clair; April 12, 2002; The Institute for Public Affairs, citing a report from the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

-- 'nuclear fallout from atmospheric atomic bomb tests reached virtually every part of the United States, causing at least 11,000 cancer cases over 50 years'

The major causes of cancer (well over 50%) stem from exposure to harmful elements of the environment-- not from genetic causes.

-- Nurture Not Nature Main Cause of Cancer - Report By Gene Emery, Reuters/Yahoo! Top Stories, July 13, 2000

-- Two-thirds of U.S. population has increased cancer risk due to pollution

Pollution doesn't even have to exist in the environment during your own lifetime to damage you-- you could end up sick or injured due to the pollution your forebears endured.

-- Air Pollution Damages Across Generations - Study By Maggie Fox, Yahoo! News/Reuters; Dec 09, 2002

-- Air Pollution Induces DNA Mutations in Mice by Sarah Graham; Scientific American; December 10, 2002

In 100+ tests, from 1940 to 1979, large tracts of Britain were secretly sprayed with biological and chemical agents meant to provide results relevant to biochemical warfare research. The public was given no warning of the trials.

-- Millions were in germ war tests by Antony Barnett; April 21, 2002; The Observer

-- US tested nerve gas in Britain; 3 Jul 2003; The Scotsman

-- Revealed: how naval intelligence tested lethal 'plague bombs' off Scotland By Neil Mackay; Sunday Herald; 09 March 2003

-- Secret exposure: U.S. tested chemical weapons on own citizens by KEVIN OGLE; April 25, 2003; WorldNow and KFOR-TV (this may be a second link to the same item)

-- Soldiers exposed in 109 chemical tests, Pentagon says

-- Defense tests of chemical weapons may have harmed sailors, subjects By David Goldstein; Knight Ridder Newspapers; Jun. 16, 2002

Risks and costs contents


Much or all the above lists the liabilities of defense spending which is never actually put to its planned purpose: war against other groups or nations. Where such resources actually are put to use in meting out death and destruction, a whole host of new potential liabilities are brought to the fore. For instance, radioactivity, unexploded bombs, and mines can continue to sicken, maim, and kill both war veterans and innocents (including children) years, decades, and even generations after the conflict in which they were deployed.

-- Nuclear weapons and pollution linked to 65 million deaths By Paul Waugh; 31 January 2003; Independent

-- Depleted uranium: war hazard? by TRAVIS DUNN; December 28, 2002; Disaster News Network Inc

-- Depleted uranium may cause kidney failure "in days" by Rob Edwards; 12 March 02; NewScientist.com news service

-- Uranium weapons health warning By Ania Lichtarowicz; BBC News Online; 12 March, 2002

-- US Dirty Bombs: Radioactive Shells Spiked with Plutonium by John LaForge; July 9, 2002; CommonDreams.org

-- Death By Slow Burn - How America Nukes Its Own Troops What 'Support Our Troops' Really Means By Amy Worthington - The Idaho Observer; 05.2.03

-- Dirty Bombs, Blowback and Imperial Projections by Fran Shor; June 12, 2002; counterpunch

-- Vets exposed to toxic agents want answers, justice

-- Chemicals used to protect soldiers in 1991 Gulf War can damage testes, animal studies show; EurekAlert!; 8-Jan-2003; Contact: Rebecca Levine; levin005@mc.duke.edu; 919-684-4148; Duke University Medical Center

-- Burning semen haunts Gulf War vets

-- The Fallout of War By Richard Leiby; Washington Post; December 30, 2002; Page C01

-- US servicemen head for sperm banks By Oliver Poole; 29/01/2003; Telegraph Group Limited

"land mines are such indiscriminate tools of war - thousands of innocent civilians worldwide are killed each year"

-- Another war, another round of land mines?By Eugene Carroll and Rachel Stohl; The Christian Science Monitor; February 18, 2003

"It will take nearly half a century to clear all the land mines lying in wait in onetime battlefields around the world"

-- Rand Urges World Focus on Land Mines By Claudia Deane and Richard Morin; Washington Post; February 18, 2003; Page A23

-- '92 countries threatened by the lethal leftovers of war'

-- World War II-era bomb explodes in Austria, killing 2; The Associated Press/The Sacramento Bee; July 17, 2003

-- Europe Still Studded With WWII Bombs by WILLIAM J. KOLE; Associated Press/Miami Herald; Jul. 21, 2003

-- One dead, two injured in war-era artillery explosion in central Vietnam

"Dozens of children killed by mines and unexploded bombs every day in Iraq"

-- IRAQ : DEADLY GAME; found on or about 10-24-03

-- Centuries of work left for WWII bomb clearers

-- Agent Orange linked to form of leukemia; ASSOCIATED PRESS/MSNBC; Jan. 23 2003

-- Nuclear stores 'on verge of exploding' by Mark Townsend; June 30, 2002; The Observer

Indeed, as our weapons get ever deadlier, they're often proving not only to be expensive enough to bankrupt the nations that develop them (the USSR collapsed partly due to excessive military expenditures), but often sometimes make for more casualties among the armies/nations which own them, than is inflicted by their official enemies in armed conflicts (especially if some of the effects cited elsewhere in this document are included in the final tally).

-- Harrier Deadlier To Friend Than Foe

"Friendly fire accounted for 17.5 percent of the 615 dead and wounded U.S. troops in the gulf war. During World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam conflict, about 2 percent of all U.S. casualties were from friendly fire"

-- Tech tools alter battlefield tactics By Jim Puzzanghera; Mercury News; Feb. 19, 2003

-- Friendly Fire: Still a Deadly Foe By Alex Salkever; APRIL 16, 2003; Businessweek

Risks and costs contents


The disruption of war causes and spreads disease outbreaks

-- War may have spread HIV; 13 May, 2003; BBC

-- War spurred west African HIV epidemic by Debora MacKenzie; 12 May 03; NewScientist.com

-- Child sickness 'soars' in Iraq; 8 June, 2003; BBC

Risks and costs contents


Much of the true economic costs of war only come due generations after they were incurred: i.e., tomorrow's adults will pay for disposal of dangerous war materials created in their parents' or grandparents' day, and many of the children and grandchildren of today's soldiers or civilians unlucky enough to be war participants will be plagued by various chronic diseases and forms of mental illness and other problems due to their ancestors' exposure to war-related training, toxins, and infections

"it's a complex and challenging program"

-- Greg Mahall, spokesman, US Army's Chemical Materials Agency

-- DESTROYING CHEMICAL WEAPONS by LOIS R. EMBER, Chemical & Engineering News; August 26, 2003

-- Centuries of work left for WWII bomb clearers

"It will take nearly half a century to clear all the land mines lying in wait in onetime battlefields around the world"

-- Rand Urges World Focus on Land Mines By Claudia Deane and Richard Morin; Washington Post; February 18, 2003; Page A23

-- '92 countries threatened by the lethal leftovers of war'

Risks and costs contents


Excessive military expenditures likely allow-- and even encourage-- the worst of human behaviour in male leaders worldwide. This possibility may represent one of the most dire risks of all to humanity's future survival

Human males appear to be considerably more prone to violence and aggression in general (and to starting wars in particular) than females. Ergo, so long as the majority of top leaders in the world remain of the male sex, it is even more vital to reduce weapons technology proliferation and military budgets across-the-board. For men appear to be genetically and behaviorally predisposed towards warring against others, if only they get the means and the opportunity. This means arms buildups and weapons advances of almost any sort will sorely tempt male leaders to seek out avenues by which to use them-- no matter what the risk. I say this based not only on research (see references below), but my own experience as a human male, and my deep-rooted desires since childhood to be a participant in a John Wayne-style bar brawl and/or something akin to World War II-- no matter the risks, personal or otherwise. Violence and aggression seem part of the essence of a man. And so piling up excessive weapons and armies around any male leader is likely not the smartest thing for a nation to do.

Human violence at all levels is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon. Especially in terms of being initiators of violence, or acting offensively. For this reason the much rarer women who commit acts of violence are typically deemed much more newsworthy to modern media than the vastly greater quantity of men who do the same or worse. A similar truth about the differences between the sexes exists in the animal world. It appears that such male violence stems largely from the evolutionary drive for winning at reproductive competitions. And the bigger the differences in reproductive success a particular species' coupling practices provide, the more intense the competition and violence among the males of that species.

Polygynous species tend to be the most competitive and violent.

Of 849 human cultures or societies studied, 83.5% were polygynous, 16% monogamous, and around 0.5% polyandrous, according to the Ethnographic Atlas by George P. Murdock

Prior to the spread of largely monogamous Judeo-Christian culture and practices around the world, 80+% of human societies at least somewhat preferred a polygynous system of marriage. But even then, monogamy was often practiced by many out of necessity spawned from poverty, or few realistic choices in mates.

Statistically, murders are overwhelmingly committed by adult (rather than younger) males. And 37% of such murders are carried out for impulsive and trivial reasons.

In light of human nature, it is understandable that violence and risk-taking would be significantly higher among those males facing more social discrimination than other male populations-- and thus these males would end up statistically more likely to be charged with various crimes and imprisoned (thus, they get a double whammy; they are more likely to be imprisoned due to unjust reasons than others, plus are more likely to feel pressured to participate in risky behavior than others (raising their probability of being justly imprisoned); both these factors together would tend to push up their overall incarceration rates). Both criminal and terrorist groups thus find these males a fertile field for recruitment.

-- Evolution, Males, and Violence By DAVID P. BARASH; The Chronicle of Higher Education; May 24, 2002; page B7; Barash and Judith Eve Lipton are the authors of the book Gender Gap: The Biology of Male-Female Differences, Transaction Publishers, 2002

In one group of primitive peoples in the Ecuadorean Amazon studied by scientists, any given male possessed a 50% chance of being killed by another in the same vicinity. In general however the murder rate for males in primitive tribal societies appears to be around 30%.

The tendency to kill others seems to have evolved as a means for men to get ahead in tribal societies. The more they killed, the higher a status they gained in their society. The higher their status, the more wives they took, and the more children they likely fathered.

Fortunately, murder rates in modern civilization have diminished considerably compared to the tribal societies from which they sprang-- tribal cultures maintain rates about 50 times higher than that of modern developed nations, circa 2000 AD.

(Of course, societies in modern developed nations may simply have replaced physical murder with virtual murder-- as in actions of omission or commission which contribute to enemies losing their jobs, businesses, investments, savings, families, friends, allies, or other important elements of social stature. Keep in mind that symbolism and abstraction remain a hallmark of human development, and as such may still be progressing among us in a variety of ways. It would be interesting to see what the difference is between the physical murder rate in tribal societies and the virtual murder rate in modern ones-- if any difference exists at all. -- JR)

The measures here include the deaths in war as well as plain individual homicides.

-- Ask Dr. Universe Survival of the meanest? Evolution hard-wires humans for violence, expert believes, May 9, 2000, The Seattle Times Company, AskDrUniverse@wsu.edu. Dr. W.S. Universe, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-1040. http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/ Ask Dr. Universe is a service of Washington State University

Fighting and conflict seem to initiate chain reactions in the males of species observed by scientists, possibly leading to an endless loop of aggression and struggle. Merely witnessing such struggles increases the chances that a given male will himself become involved in fights in the future.

Perhaps worse, these male tendencies seem virtually undiminished even when some combatants are directly related to one another.

It seems that the world economy and society themselves were likely heavily shaped by these decidedly male characteristics during the Industrial Revolution, and later through the 20th and 21st centuries.

In light of the effect that witnessing violence has on encouraging still more violence among males, the huge emphasis on violence since the 1960s in the entertainment media of western nations may have been most unfortunate-- considering those same nations tended to be controlled in following generations by males raised in an environment which saturated them with same. Might the late 20th century and early 21st have turned out differently if violence in the media of the time had been more subdued?

Would the arts/sciences of economics and governance developed over past millennia have been more humane and equitable if women had had a larger say in their development?

-- Must men fight? Probably by ANNE McILROY, January 27, 2001, The Globe and Mail; Globe Interactive; Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.

-- Boys compete 'for the sake of it' by Alison Motluk; New Scientist; 25 August 02

In Indonesia's Western Sumatra, the four million strong population of Minangkabau possess a matriarchal system where partnership and cooperation rather than competition rule the day. The resulting culture is "almost violence-free".

-- Indonesia's matriarchal Minangkabau offer an alternative social system; ; EurekAlert; 9-May-2002; Contact: Pam Kosty; pkosty@sas.upenn.edu; 215-898-4045; University of Pennsylvania

The scientist discussed in the above article is named Peggy Reeves Sanday, and has written the books Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy; Cornell University Press, May 2002; A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial; Doubleday, 1996; and Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood and Privilege on Campus; New York University Press, 1990

The long isolated Mosuo culture (numbering around 50,000) in the Yunnan Province of China is "...one of the most harmonious societies on the planet...", largely because the women rule and the men have no control or power over important social issues (and thus nothing to fight about).

Their vocabulary doesn't even include a word meaning war. Crimes like rape and murder apparently don't happen there, and they have no need for jails.

Unfortunately, encroaching modern civilization and its male-dominated, violent and competitive ways is now threatening to ruin this seeming paradise. But at least it has given us a glimpse of what could be for human civilization, if suitable changes were made.

-- Where Women Rule By Mark Litke and Chito Sta. Romana; May 19, 2002; ABC News

"White male juries are hanging juries"

-- A Jury of Their Mothers' Peers by Sean Gallagher; June 25, 2002; Sean Gallagher's Rant Central

"the future is female"

-- End of sperm report by Sean O'Hagan; September 15, 2002; The Observer

Risks and costs contents


Excessively large and powerful militaries often perversely put their own societies at higher risk of totalitarian takeover, than they might otherwise be

Throughout history, excessively large and powerful militaries have often been used to bypass the existing government of their host nations and seize control of their respective countries.

Risks and costs contents


What are the pros and cons of excessive monies being spent on secretive intelligence and so-called 'national security' agencies-- as well as the influence that their existence has upon the host society itself?

The pros possibly include the creation of a wealth of new and valuable knowledge as to how life might be made better in the host nation or even worldwide-- if such agencies objectively and consistently pursue such goals in their directives, plus make such information collected readily available for scientific study. Unfortunately, this is rarely the case. Instead, such agencies are usually tasked with spying on other countries, attempting to trap or coerce others into desired courses of action, or even sabotaging the efforts of others in various pursuits, or toppling foreign governments which oppose the views or actions of the agency's home nation. Such agencies might also be used to prepare 'enemy' countries for invasion.

The cons may include the fact that such organizations often consist of or are eventually transformed into 'secret police' which primarily act as enforcers of the status quo in the host nation (the existing government) and so often become powerfully anti-democratic elements within their home societies.

Such organizations may also be used to topple legitimate native governments, in ways similar to (or more subtle than) the military takeover option. While such government toppling could theoretically lead to a more open, free, and democratic society, most often it does not in the short to intermediate term. Instead, a coup engineered by intelligence or security agencies tend to merely bring to the fore those powers which previously ruled (or vyed for dominance with other factions) from behind the scenes. And so some form of the previous status quo remains in effect.

Thus, such intelligence and national security agencies might often actually reduce their host nation's own security (as well as the human race as a whole's future survival chances) via many channels, including that of increasing overall political instability in the world, and reducing global diversity in political, social, and technological fields-- thereby making everyone more vulnerable simultaneously to a variety of risks. I.e., a world too dependent upon a single company's computer operating system is also much more vulnerable to a single computer virus or code bug being exploited globally, than a more diverse world would be. In short, the computer systems of the entire world could theoretically be crashed or damaged all at once, possibly wreaking havoc with many parts of the infrastructure.

Risks and costs contents


The less money nations spend on their militaries and intelligence and security measures, the more they have for education, healthcare, and other social needs-- and/or, the lower the tax burden on average citizens can be; thus is nourished greater peace and prosperity for a people, while the making war is discouraged

To see what a difference military spending makes for developed nations, it may be useful to compare the societies of America, western Europe, and Japan. America is expected to spend a whopping $400 billion annually on defense by 2005, compared to around $174 billion spent by all the NATO member states of Europe combined (UK, France, Germany, etc.), and $49 billion by Japan (spending by Japan and the Europeans wasn't expected to change much over the foreseeable future from previous levels). This enormous difference in military spending makes for drastically different healthcare access and quality of life for the average citizen among these nations.

"The US Department of Defense has estimated US military spending for 2004 at about $390 billion, rising to $400 billion in 2005....

...Japan, the world's second-largest military spender, is far behind the United States with an annual defense budget of $49 billion, followed by the United Kingdom with $36 billion....

...the United States now accounts for 43 percent of world military expenditure"

-- US fuels boom in global military spending By Thalif Deen; Jun 19, 2003; Asia Times

The proposed 2003 defense budget for the USA amounted to $379 billion.

-- Billions for Defense, Pennies for Development by Jim Lobe; Inter Press Service; March 2, 2002

"...in 1999...the defense spending of all European members of NATO put together declined...to $174 billion..."

"they [the europeans] can use the money they save to preserve their...welfare states"

-- Worse Than Useless? by Marian L. Tupy; May 1, 2003; Cato Institute

-- A Japanese-Style Star Wars? By Brian Bremner; JANUARY 15, 2003; Businessweek

"...the United States spends more than 3 percent of its gross domestic product on defense, and Britain and France 2.5 percent of GDP, most of Europe (with the exception of Greece) spends much less: Germany 1.5 percent..."

-- Europe's Empty Gesture By June Thomas; May 1, 2003; Slate.msn.com

"...Europeans still enjoy free health care for all, cradle to grave; free education through university level; comparatively generous retirement for their elderly; an average of five weeks paid annual vacation, more sick leave, parental leave, and a shorter work week with comparable wages for their workers...Social spending in Europe runs some 50 percent above that in the United States. Environmental, food safety and labor laws are the envy of activists in the U.S."

-- The Ups and Downs of European Politics by Steven Hill; AlterNet; December 21, 2002

-- U.S Childcare Seriously Lags Behind that of Europe; ASA NEWS; November 18, 2002; Contact: Johanna Ebner or Lee Herring; (202) 383-9005, ext. 332; pubinfo@asanet.org

The world's healthiest people are the Japanese, while France appears to possess the best health care system overall. The United States spends more per person on health care every year than any of the other 190 countries in the study, yet ranks only 37th in terms of health care quality, and 24th in the World Health Organization's Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy.

The World Health Organization studied health care quality and cost in 191 countries worldwide, announcing their conclusions around mid-2000 AD. Among them were these items of note:

WHO's study focused primarily upon the cost-effectiveness of each nation's health care, compared to all others. Important factors included the health of a country's native population relative to others, the treatment of the nation's minorities and poor, and how well a country's public health system does at preventing sickness in the first place.

The people of Japan were judged to be the most healthy population overall, living on average 4.5 years more in good health during their lifespan than Americans. Japan spends an average of $1,759 per person in health care.

France was judged to possess the best health care system overall, with Italy coming in second. The French live on average three more years in good health than Americans. France spends an annual average of $2,125 per person on health care.

Japan, Singapore, and Spain ranked among the top ten best health care systems in the world.

Britain and Canada, which offer a free national health service and a widely acclaimed system respectively, came in 18th and 30th on the scorecard.

The United States came in 37th in ranking, despite spending more per person on health care every year than any of the other 190 countries in the study ($3,724).

-- Controversial study finds France has world's best health-care system By LAURAN NEERGAARD, Associated Press, June 20, 2000, http://www.nandotimes.com

Of 191 nations considered, Japan appears to boast the most healthy and long lived population overall.

By the World Health Organization's own Disability Adjusted Life Expectancy (DALE) years of bad health are subtracted from average life expectancy to better measure the length of healthy lifespans per country. By this measure the USA ranked only 24th on the list-- trailing states like Switzerland, Monaco, and Greece.

The lowest life expectancy (under 26) exists in Sierra Leone.

-- Japan Has Longest Healthy Life Expectancy - WHO By Patricia Reaney, Reuters/Yahoo! Top Stories Headlines, June 4, 2000

"...American families live just one illness or accident away from complete financial collapse"

-- US Study: Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies by Araminta Wordsworth; www.commondreams.org; October 09, 2002; originally published by the National Post in Canada, April 27, 2000

"It was very unlikely 30 years ago that an ordinary family could run up a half-million dollar medical bill, yet today that can happen in a matter of weeks in a major medical centre"

-- US Study: Medical Bills Main Culprit In Bankruptcies by Araminta Wordsworth; www.commondreams.org; October 09, 2002; originally published by the National Post in Canada, April 27, 2000

-- Pharmaceuticals are more precious than gold By MICHAEL WOODS; Toledo Blade/The Albuquerque Tribune; December 23, 2002

Compared to other countries, Americans are charged too much for just about everything health or medical-related. For example, we typically pay twice as much as other nations do for the same exact drugs. We pay our doctors twice on average what other OECD nations do too. We also pay lots more in administrative costs than most other OECD countries, wherever they use universal health systems compared to our private health care insurance system.

-- Health Insurance Premiums; OUTSTANDING STORIES OF THE WEEK; Economic Reporting Review By Dean Baker; July 15, 2002

"The big question is why are Americans paying twice as much as Canadians for the same drugs"

-- Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.

-- Access To Canadian Prescriptions May End By Jackie Judd; ABC News; found on or about October 24, 2003

-- Pills, Profit and the Public Health with Peter Jennings; ABC News Internet Ventures; Bitter Medicine: Pills, Profit and the Public Health aired on ABC, May 29, 2002 at 10 PM ET

-- Health Care in a 'Death Cycle' (washingtonpost.com) By David S. Broder; April 17, 2002; Page A15

"Americans are raising the white flag as never before..."

-- Breaking Records--For Bankruptcies By Andy Serwer; FORTUNE STREET LIFE found on or about 7-14-2002

-- Physical, mental health illnesses hinder low-income families' economic security; 17-Aug-2002; Contact: Vicki Fong; vyf1@psu.edu; 814-865-9481; Penn State

-- A Plague of Health-Insurance Scams By Brian Grow; Businessweek; AUGUST 9, 2002

Ironically, as of 2002, Americans already paid enough in taxes to get the universal health care virtually all other developed nations already possess. But we've let our politicians and big business simply pocket huge chunks of it rather than provide us with the services we've paid for.

"We pay the world's highest health care taxes, but much of the money is squandered. The wealthy get tax breaks, and HMOs and drug companies pocket billions in profits at the taxpayers' expense."

-- Dr. Steffie Woolhandler, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard

"...politicians claim we can't afford universal coverage. Every other developed nation has national health insurance. We already pay for it, but we don't get it."

-- Dr. David Himmelstein, of Physicians for a National Health Program.

"Other nations provide comprehensive health care to everyone without spending any more than the amount that we already pay in taxes to fund health care. But in the United States, we keep in place flawed policies that prevent tens of millions from having any health care coverage at all."

"We have an abundance of data to show that we can provide truly comprehensive health care benefits for absolutely everyone and actually reduce our total health care costs by adopting a program of universal health insurance."

-- Dr. Don McCanne, president of Physicians for a National Health Program

-- Harvard Medical School study concludes: 'We pay for national health insurance but don't get it' by Frances M. Beal; July 17, 2002; San Francisco Bay View

"For the majority of Americans, the question is not if they will experience poverty, but when"

-- Most Americans Experience Poverty Sometime In Adult Life, Study Finds; 7 APRIL 1999; Contact: Gerry Everding; gerry_everding@aismail.wustl.edu; 314-935-6375; Washington University in St. Louis

The overwhelming majority (90%) of young white male employees in USAmerica are destined to experience a smaller rise in income over their lives than their father's generation did

-- Ninety percent of young white male workers now doing worse than they would have 20 years ago; EurekAlert!; 20-Feb-2002; Contact: Joel Schwarz; joels@u.washington.edu; 206-543-2580; University of Washington

-- Whites join slide into poverty as US incomes fall by Matthew Engel; September 26, 2002; The Guardian

-- Census: U.S. Poverty Up, Income Down (washingtonpost.com) By Steven Pearlstein; September 24, 2002

-- U.S. Poverty Up, Income Down; ABC News

Risks and costs contents


Excessively large and powerful military forces in one nation can scare other nations into similar buildups-- thereby heightening the overall risk of war, and pressuring downwards living standards for everyone worldwide or within a local region

Risks and costs contents


How might the risks of war be minimized?

If war is always an evil, and perhaps near to being the ultimate human evil, plus increases the risk of total human extinction exponentially as related technologies advance, it would seem only logical to do all we can to prevent it and/or minimize its occurance.

But how might we reduce the likelihood of war? How could we possibly discourage folks everywhere from engaging in such activity, or preparing or threatening to do so, when it is so deeply ingrained in our nature and history?

Risks and costs contents


Minimizing the risk of madness, incompetence, or lack of accountability in top government and business positions worldwide

Incompetence, insanity, ignorance, or lack of empathy or accountability at the top of a nation's (or world's) leadership definitely pose severe risks of instigation of unnecessary wars, as well as economic downturns. So dictatorships and non-democracies definitely look to be dangerous in terms of initiating wars and/or increasing economic suffering. Unfortunately, even modern democracies circa 2003 appear woefully vulnerable to initiating war for little or no cause, as candidates for such positions are not usually screened for signs of mental illness, nor even their past records of behavior necessarily scrutinized before they take power.

-- The U.S. Government Case for War in Iraq Based on Forgery and Lies by Ronda Hauben; 24.06.2003; Heise Zeitschriften Verlag GmbH & Co.KG

-- The Bush administration's Top 40 Lies about war and terrorism by Steve Perry; City Pages VOL 24 #1182; 7/30/03; City Pages Media, Inc

-- Whoppers of Mass Destruction By Dennis Cass; June 23, 2003; motherjones.com

-- 'We owe it to those who died in Iraq to demand accountability'

-- The War Built On A Lie by Harley Sorensen; SF Gate ; June 16, 2003

-- White House 'lied about Saddam threat' by Julian Borger; July 10, 2003; The Guardian

-- Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002 by John King; CNN

-- President's zeal to oust Hussein may be personal

-- Bush planned Iraq 'regime change' before becoming President By Neil Mackay; Sunday Herald - 15 September 2002 (second link to this story)

Believe it or not, the President of the USA's annual medical examination does not currently, and never has, included even a routine psychiatric examination. Virtually all other personnel expected to endure unusual stresses-- such as FBI and CIA agents, and professional pilots-- must at minimum pass a single such exam to begin their jobs. Not so the Presidency circa 2002, even though psychiatric problems there could literally bring on the end of the world.

-- Their Annual Checkups Should Be Complete (washingtonpost.com) By Alen J. Salerian; May 12, 2002; Page B03

-- Fighting Mad Leader Disease (possibly by Rebecca Sloan Slotnick); Science Observer; November-December, 2001

-- 'dangers of the corporate psychopath'

To make matters worse, advances in technology and breakdowns in regulatory power or will to insure diversity and fight against business monopolies are both combining in developed nations circa 2003 to offer top leaders and their wealthy supporters potent means to manipulate public opinion in their favor, no matter what decisions or actions those leaders undertake-- thereby bypassing many checks on their power which prevented or reduced many unnecessary conflicts and economic calamities in the past.

"For five decades....the biggest bargain around...[was]....political influence. For many a year, it was far cheaper than anything to be found in the stock market."

"[If real campaign finance reform is not undertaken in the US]....we are well on our way to ensuring that a government of the moneyed, by the moneyed, and for the moneyed shall not perish from the earth."

-- Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway Inc., 2000

-- The Billionaire's Buyout Plan By WARREN E. BUFFETT; September 10, 2000; The New York Times Company

-- Media Concentration is a Totalitarian Tool by Molly Ivins; found on or about October 27, 2003 at commondreams.org, previously published January 31, 2003 by the Boulder Daily Camera

-- Frightening new evidence of the brain's susceptibility to suggestion

"The media can exert a powerful influence over suicidal behaviour and other major public health issues..."

-- Media coverage boosts 'charcoal burning' suicides by Shaoni Bhattacharya; 28 February 03; NewScientist.com

-- Media may facilitate suicidal acts; EurekAlert! 27-Feb-2003; Contact: Emma Dickinson; edickinson@bmj.com; 44-207-383-6529; BMJ-British Medical Journal

-- Mind tricks take memories for a ride, scientists assert

-- From kissing frogs to demonic possession, people are led to believe they experienced the improbable; EurekAlert!; 16-Feb-2003; Contact: Lori Brandt; lbrandt@uci.edu; 949-824-5484; University of California - Irvine

Thus, it would seem only prudent that all our top leaders in both business and government be subject to regular, scientifically credible, and independent mental evaluations, with the results made available in timely fashion to the public. Indeed, it was recently recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that all adults be tested for one particular element of mental illness on a regular basis-- depression.

-- Federal panel urges screening of adults for depression;The Associated Press/Nando Media/Nando Times; May 21, 2002

Risks and costs contents


Maximize accountability at the highest levels of government and business by maintaining constant independent surveillance upon those in power and minimizing the power of the elite to use secrecy or censorship to shield the actions of themselves or others

Top leadership should be kept under constant surveillance by independent parties as well, to help prevent potentially world-ending mistakes, corruption, and deceptions, as well as lesser catastrophes possibly putting large numbers of people unnecessarily at risk in some way.

But as of early 2003 we are charting the opposite course-- of implementing across-the-board surveillance upon the innocent masses of our civilian populations, while allowing those in leadership positions to hide much of their own intent and actions. This surveillance of the masses helps insure the elite enormous leverage in silencing anyone among the public who might uncover elite mistakes or wrongdoing, and report it. It also provides elites the power to more easily quash protests and general dissent against their rule-- which means that true democracy in such nations can then be more easily subverted. In such circumstances you approach the same risk levels associated with dangerous leadership behavior occuring in overtly totalitarian societies, or rule by despot.

-- This is really a war on dissenters - www.theage.com.au (possibly by Naomi Klein); September 8, 2003; The Age

-- The Impact of the USA PATRIOT Act on Free Expression By Nancy Kranich; May 5, 2003; The Free Expression Policy Project

-- U.S. becoming Big Brother society: Report; Associated Press/The Globe and Mail; Jan. 16, 2003

-- Fighting terror by terrifying U.S. citizens by ROB MORSE; San Francisco Chronicle; November 20, 2002

"Hundreds of whistleblower complaints about waste, fraud and abuse in government are going unexamined"

-- Backlog of Whistleblower Cases Growing, Agency Report Says By Tania Branigan; Washington Post; July 21, 2003; Page A04

"whistleblowers, audits and investigations were responsible for detecting 86 percent of crimes"

-- Economic Crime Detected Mostly by Whistleblowers and Audits, PwC Survey Finds By SmartPros Editorial Staff; July 9, 2003; SmartPros Ltd

"Whistleblowers can pay dearly for doing the right thing"

-- In the name of truth by Caroline Overington; July 22 2003; The Age

What becomes of US and British government whistleblowers? Smears and harassment

-- Insiders Outed ; July 24, 2003; motherjones.com

-- Whistleblowers get the axe by Jed Gottlieb; 10/23/2003; The Independent Online Vol. 14 No. 43

"the fact that the Bush Administration would try and use the courts to stiffle dissent is nothing short of astounding, and must be broadcast to as wide an audience as possible"

-- Ashcroft tried to prevent NYC protests; February 16, 2003; daily KOS

In late 2002, with negligible prior debate, the US Congress created "the biggest new federal bureaucracy since World War II...that will mostly serve to spy on the American people".

-- The Homeland Security Monstrosity by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX); November 19, 2002

-- 'Bush Calls for Broader Police Powers to Fight Terrorism'

-- The New McCarthyism: Secret Arrest and Detention instead of Blacklisting by Toby Sackton; November 10, 2002; Toby's Political Diary - 'Let it Begin Here'

-- US uses terrorism law in other crime probes

-- No more easy time: Peace protesters serving terms alongside hardened criminals

-- No-fly blacklist snares political activists by Alan Gathright, San Francisco Chronicle; September 27, 2002

-- Environmentalists = Terrorists (possibly by Karen Charman); May 08 2003; tompaine.com

-- Conflating protests with terrorism by Bill Berkowitz; WorkingForChange; 06.13.03

-- Analysts saw protesters at terrorists

-- Canadian Arrested on His Way To Conference Against Genetically Engineered Foods; May 16, 2003; St. Louis Indymedia Center

-- Intelligence agency does not distinguish between terrorism and peace activism

Bringing the real truth to light (and purging business and government of excess or dangerous levels of secrecy)

One way we could boost real accountability and justice in the world is force everyone in positions of power (both business and government) to be as honest as possible in their words and actions. Impossible, you say? It's not. Indeed, it gets ever more technologically feasible each passing day. For example, there'd be nothing simpler than setting up an overlapping, saturated surveillance of our chief executives so that their every word and action relating to their office could be recorded for posterity and after-the-fact analysis.

-- To Cure Fraud, Start at the Top; interview of Carl Pergola by Eric Wahlgren; Businessweek; OCTOBER 18, 2002

Keep in mind the world would be helped immeasurably more by closely monitoring the actions or detecting the lies of the rich and powerful than doing the same with regard to small-time crooks and criminals. Even serial killers of hundreds of people (or terrorist killers of thousands) can adversely impact society far less than someone like the head of a major corporation or major nation-state can, at this stage in our techological development. The more powerful and influential the person in question, the more urgent the need to insure their honesty and motivations in the position.

"If we show zero tolerance for mugging or speeding, let's also show zero tolerance for crimes that ruin thousands of lives. Corporate corruption is criminal, and we need to root it out."

-- Time to stop the rot for good by Harry Heidelberg; The Sydney Morning Herald; January 20, 2003

If the first place you use this technology is on people like common thieves and murderers, you're starting at the wrong (and least effective) end of things. If the first place you start is with wholesale surveillance and lie detection measures put into place over apparently innocent citizens or employees en masse, then it would seem you're pursuing a downright sinister course-- as the most effective thing that might accomplish is stopping an innocent whistleblower from revealing wrong doing on the part of the powerful. Is this what the USA and other developed nations are in process of doing as of 2002, with legislation like the U.S.A. Patriot Act? If so, perhaps more people should be re-reading George Orwell's 1984 [shop for this]. Or Vernor Vinge's A Deepness in the Sky [shop for this]. Before it's too late.

Overlapping and saturated surveillance by independent parties of our government and business leaders and their circles of associates and staff would be the simplest, cheapest, and easiest way to ascertain honesty and integrity in such groups. But if even more accuracy and granularity was desired in the process, development of more advanced lie detection systems is also possible.

Here's a quick index to a multitude of different techniques which might be combined to create a superbly powerful lie detection system:

Run the typed or transcribed statements of a suspect through special analysis software which looks for changes in writing or speaking presentation which indicates possible falsehoods or confusion. Text Miner is the name of one such program, developed by the SAS Institute.

-- Software can spot digital deceivers; BBC News Online; 22 January, 2002

-- Text mining seen as research, security tool By EMERY P. DALESIO, Associated Press/Nando Media/Nando Times; March 4, 2002; AP Online

Perform automated computer translation of spoken or written words into a special language designed for uncovering lies. Then have the original speaker or writer respond to the suspect points discovered via the translation-- and repeat the translation and follow up questioning cycle-- until all the possible deceptions have disappeared, or it becomes obvious the truth is missing-in-action. Does such a language exist? Yes.

The language of the Trio people of Surinam in South America is apparently designed to reveal falsehoods.

-- Language designed to prevent lying; Ananova Ltd ; 21st April 2002

Proper analysis of brain scans from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) can reveal a person's dishonesty.

-- The brain operates differently in deception and honesty; 11-Nov-2001; Contact: Ellen O'Brien ellen.obrien@uphs.upenn.edu 215-349-5659 University of Pennsylvania Medical Center

-- Going To Lie? Better Avoid fMRI, Study Indicates; [Contact: Ellen O'Brien]; 13-Nov-2001; unisci.com

-- Scientific American: News In Brief: MRI Study Shows Lying Brains Look Different: November 14, 2001 by Sarah Graham

Professional analysis of facial expressions and body language and movements can help the detection of lies. Inconsistencies in dialogue content also help give away liars.

-- Intuitive people worse at detecting lies by Emma Young; 18 March 02; NewScientist.com

-- Some police see through killer's lies by Bruce Bower; Science News Online, March 3, 2001;

Certain victims of a particular kind of brain damage become much better at detecting liars than uninjured people, after they've had at least a year to adjust to their new mental capabilities. Their affliction is called aphasia.

-- Some Humans Become Lie-Detectors; Discovery.com News/Associated Press; May 11, 2000

There exists software today capable of analyzing facial expressions for insincerity.

-- University Science Computer Reads Facial Expressions Better Than Humans - By Suzanne Clancy [Contact: Suzanne Clancy] 22-Mar-1999; http://unisci.com

10% of liars can pass coventional lie detector tests. 20% of those telling the truth typically fail the tests. A more accurate way to judge the truth might be computer analysis of micro-expressions; involuntary facial expressions of a person's real emotions which flash across the face too fast for normal human perceptions to reliably catch. However, such technologies are still in the testing phase as of 1999.

-- Liar, Liar, Face on Fire; DISCOVER Vol. 20 No. 7; July 1999; The Walt Disney Company

Thermal imaging cameras appear capable of detecting some lies from changes in blood circulation around the eyes.

-- Scientists: Liars betrayed by their faces; The Associated Press./CNN; URL: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/02/liars.faces.ap/index.html

-- New technology detects lying, paves way for increased security; 2-Jan-2002; Contact: Sara Bakken newsbureau@mayo.edu 507-284-5005 Mayo Clinic

-- Thermal camera captures guilty faces by Will Knight; 02 January 02; New Scientist; cite of Nature (vol 415, p 35)

The old conventional lie detection apparatus (polygraph) may be used to gather certain types of information, but is not itself necessarily an infallible detection device.

-- Scientific American: In Focus: Truth or Consequences: October 1999 by Tim Beardsley

-- The truth about the polygraph By Susan McCarthy; salon.com > Health & Body March 2, 2000; URL: http://www.salon.com/health/feature/2000/03/02/polygraph

-- To Tell the Truth. VitalSTATS March 2001

Another technology deemed roughly equivalent to the polygraph in accuracy (but which uses a somewhat different method to get its results) is voice stress analysis.

-- Police increasingly using voice-based lie-detector; 02/11/2002; USA TODAY/The Associated Press

-- "Telling the truth? Truster system can find you out" By Matthew Nelson InfoWorld Electric, 7-31-98

-- Search for truth: New technology for catching liars could put more people's honesty to the test by CHRISTOPHER NEWTON, Associated Press/sfgate.com; June 21, 2002

Human memory tends to make mistakes, and even recall events which never took place.

Researchers though have determined a way to differentiate false memories from real ones. The key is brain activity involving sensory experiences related to a given memory. Real memories possess such sensory data, while false ones don't.

-- Telling the Truth About "False" Memory: MU Researchers Discover the Brain Knows Things You Don't; January 22, 2001 Contact: Jason L. Jenkins Information Specialist (573) 882-6217 JenkinsJL@missouri.edu

Note that the enormous cost and effort that would be required to integrate all the above techniques and possibly others into a single, extremely accurate lie detection system at any time in the near future could make it impractical and wasteful to use such a system on anyone in society but the very highest ranking and most influential shapers of business and government.

Risks and costs contents


Make it easier for women to be promoted or elected to leadership positions in business and government-- and tougher for men

Yes, I'm proposing the set up of a system significantly biased against men in leadership positions, based on men's built-in tendency towards excesses in aggression, violence, and greed, compared to women. A suitably configured system wouldn't absolutely prevent or prohibit men from attaining such positions: it would simply tilt the playing field more in favor of women on average, to force up the quality of those male candidates who ultimately do achieve such positions in the system.

Human males appear to be considerably more prone to violence and aggression in general (and to starting wars in particular) than females. Men appear to be genetically and behaviorally predisposed towards warring against others (as well as preparing to do so), if only they get the means and the opportunity. I write this based not only on research (see references below), but my own experience as a human male, and my deep-rooted desires since childhood to be a participant in a John Wayne-style bar brawl and/or something akin to World War II-- no matter the risks, personal or otherwise. Violence and aggression seem part of the essence of a man. And so for many matters vital to global security and the future of the human race itself, we'd all likely be far better off with women in charge.

Human violence at all levels is an overwhelmingly male phenomenon. Especially in terms of being initiators of violence, or acting offensively. For this reason the much rarer women who commit acts of violence are typically deemed much more newsworthy to modern media than the vastly greater quantity of men who do the same or worse. A similar truth about the differences between the sexes exists in the animal world. It appears that such male violence stems largely from the evolutionary drive for winning at reproductive competitions. And the bigger the differences in reproductive success a particular species' coupling practices provide, the more intense the competition and violence among the males of that species.

Polygynous species tend to be the most competitive and violent.

Of 849 human cultures or societies studied, 83.5% were polygynous, 16% monogamous, and around 0.5% polyandrous, according to the Ethnographic Atlas by George P. Murdock

Prior to the spread of largely monogamous Judeo-Christian culture and practices around the world, 80+% of human societies at least somewhat preferred a polygynous system of marriage. But even then, monogamy was often practiced by many out of necessity spawned from poverty, or few realistic choices in mates.

Statistically, murders are overwhelmingly committed by adult (rather than younger) males. And 37% of such murders are carried out for impulsive and trivial reasons.

In light of human nature, it is understandable that violence and risk-taking would be significantly higher among those males facing more social discrimination than other male populations-- and thus these males would end up statistically more likely to be charged with various crimes and imprisoned (thus, they get a double whammy; they are more likely to be imprisoned due to unjust reasons than others, plus are more likely to feel pressured to participate in risky behavior than others (raising their probability of being justly imprisoned); both these factors together would tend to push up their overall incarceration rates). Both criminal and terrorist groups thus find these males a fertile field for recruitment.

-- Evolution, Males, and Violence By DAVID P. BARASH; The Chronicle of Higher Education; May 24, 2002; page B7; Barash and Judith Eve Lipton are the authors of the book Gender Gap: The Biology of Male-Female Differences, Transaction Publishers, 2002

In one group of primitive peoples in the Ecuadorean Amazon studied by scientists, any given male possessed a 50% chance of being killed by another in the same vicinity. In general however the murder rate for males in primitive tribal societies appears to be around 30%.

The tendency to kill others seems to have evolved as a means for men to get ahead in tribal societies. The more they killed, the higher a status they gained in their society. The higher their status, the more wives they took, and the more children they likely fathered.

Fortunately, murder rates in modern civilization have diminished considerably compared to the tribal societies from which they sprang-- tribal cultures maintain rates about 50 times higher than that of modern developed nations, circa 2000 AD.

(Of course, societies in modern developed nations may simply have replaced physical murder with virtual murder-- as in actions of omission or commission which contribute to enemies losing their jobs, businesses, investments, savings, families, friends, allies, or other important elements of social stature. Keep in mind that symbolism and abstraction remain a hallmark of human development, and as such may still be progressing among us in a variety of ways. It would be interesting to see what the difference is between the physical murder rate in tribal societies and the virtual murder rate in modern ones-- if any difference exists at all. -- JR)

The measures here include the deaths in war as well as plain individual homicides.

-- Ask Dr. Universe Survival of the meanest? Evolution hard-wires humans for violence, expert believes, May 9, 2000, The Seattle Times Company, AskDrUniverse@wsu.edu. Dr. W.S. Universe, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164-1040. http://www.wsu.edu/DrUniverse/ Ask Dr. Universe is a service of Washington State University

Fighting and conflict seem to initiate chain reactions in the males of species observed by scientists, possibly leading to an endless loop of aggression and struggle. Merely witnessing such struggles increases the chances that a given male will himself become involved in fights in the future.

Perhaps worse, these male tendencies seem virtually undiminished even when some combatants are directly related to one another.

It seems that the world economy and society themselves were likely heavily shaped by these decidedly male characteristics during the Industrial Revolution, and later through the 20th and 21st centuries.

In light of the effect that witnessing violence has on encouraging still more violence among males, the huge emphasis on violence since the 1960s in the entertainment media of western nations may have been most unfortunate-- considering those same nations tended to be controlled in following generations by males raised in an environment which saturated them with same. Might the late 20th century and early 21st have turned out differently if violence in the media of the time had been more subdued?

Would the arts/sciences of economics and governance developed over past millennia have been more humane and equitable if women had had a larger say in their development?

-- Must men fight? Probably by ANNE McILROY, January 27, 2001, The Globe and Mail; Globe Interactive; Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc.

-- Boys compete 'for the sake of it' by Alison Motluk; New Scientist; 25 August 02

In Indonesia's Western Sumatra, the four million strong population of Minangkabau possess a matriarchal system where partnership and cooperation rather than competition rule the day. The resulting culture is "almost violence-free".

-- Indonesia's matriarchal Minangkabau offer an alternative social system; ; EurekAlert; 9-May-2002; Contact: Pam Kosty; pkosty@sas.upenn.edu; 215-898-4045; University of Pennsylvania

The scientist discussed in the above article is named Peggy Reeves Sanday, and has written the books Women at the Center: Life in a Modern Matriarchy; Cornell University Press, May 2002; A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial; Doubleday, 1996; and Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood and Privilege on Campus; New York University Press, 1990

The long isolated Mosuo culture (numbering around 50,000) in the Yunnan Province of China is "...one of the most harmonious societies on the planet...", largely because the women rule and the men have no control or power over important social issues (and thus nothing to fight about).

Their vocabulary doesn't even include a word meaning war. Crimes like rape and murder apparently don't happen there, and they have no need for jails.

Unfortunately, encroaching modern civilization and its male-dominated, violent and competitive ways is now threatening to ruin this seeming paradise. But at least it has given us a glimpse of what could be for human civilization, if suitable changes were made.

-- Where Women Rule By Mark Litke and Chito Sta. Romana; May 19, 2002; ABC News

"White male juries are hanging juries"

-- A Jury of Their Mothers' Peers by Sean Gallagher; June 25, 2002; Sean Gallagher's Rant Central

"the future is female"

-- End of sperm report by Sean O'Hagan; September 15, 2002; The Observer

Risks and costs contents


Keep spending on intelligence, security, and military forces or agencies and related resources for both business and government to the absolute minimum deemed reasonable for the present and likely future circumstances

Risks and costs contents


War technology proliferation is another global matter today. The USA and some other nations make a big deal about limiting the sales of things like personal computers to some states, claiming they could be adapted for war. But at the same time we sell advanced missiles and warplanes and similar items to almost everyone who wants them. Heck, sometimes we even effectively give them away. Might I suggest that computers would be a somewhat safer giveaway than warplanes and missiles?

Having a world awash in weapons, from hand guns and assault rifles to missiles and advanced fighter jets is simply not a reasonable way to run the planet. Especially when so many of the people in the world remain functionally illiterate, and desperate for a better life. Combine these two elements and you get a recipe for unending cycles of disaster and economic ruin in at least some regions of the world, and perhaps eventually the entire planet.

-- Questioning the humanity of countries that supply arms; EurekAlert!; 19-Dec-2002; Contact: Emma Dickinson; edickinson@bmj.com; 44-20-7383-6529; BMJ-British Medical Journal

-- Small arms, light weapons: Mass destruction by GRAA MACHEL; The Hindu; November 04, 2001

-- Weapons of Mass Consumption How U.S. dealers arm the world BY JAKE BERGMAN and JULIA REYNOLDS; Weekly Planet, found on or about 10-24-03

-- UK sells chemical weapons to the world by Neil Mackay; Sunday Herald; 09 June 2002

-- Making of a Monster: How the U. S. Helped Build Iraq's War Machine - September 7, 1992 by William P. Hoar; The New American Vol. 8, No. 18

-- Zarif: US itself equipped Iraq with WMD for attack against Iran; Islamic Republic News Agency; found on or about 10-24-03

-- Revealed: 17 British firms armed Saddam with his weapons By Neil Mackay; Sunday Herald; 23 February 2003

The smaller and less spectacularly equipped the militaries of the world are, the less risk of war and the less damage and fewer deaths resulting from any war which does take place.

The more nations that minimize their military expenditures, the more other nations which will follow their example. Some nations only maintain large military budgets out of fear of neighboring countries with large military budgets.

One way to reduce the proliferation of weapons technology is by accompanying such with ramp ups in across-the-board scrutiny on that state's related research and development, implementation, and deployment, and stiff global taxes on such activities (with the tax rate determined by the ability of a given power to pay it)

In other words, some international entity like the United Nations should apply a 'sin tax' onto military expenditures which surpass that estimated as sufficient to protect a state's own geophysical sovereignty and security, and take pains to enforce it.

Although the UN of 2003 isn't suitably configured or strong enough to implement such a policy onto the upper tier of world powers, at some point the world will come to see the necessity of it, and it will come to pass. Otherwise, the end of all humanity may come to pass far sooner than all expect.

Miscellaneous unorganized links under consideration for inclusion in this document:


Women-Owned Businesses Not only are their numbers booming, a new survey finds they are far more productive than their male-run counterparts
The Scourge of Militarism
Canada currently spends $9 billion on its 52,000-member armed forces

"every jet fighter sold to a developing country is equivalent to the expense of schooling three million children"

-- Frank Talk on Free Trade by Jeff Gates, President of the Shared Capitalism Institute; SustainAbility Radar March 2000
Yahoo! News - More Than 11,000 Child Fighters in Colombia's War
Soft Economy Aids Army Recruiting Effort
Yahoo! News - Group Colombia Armies Enlist Children
Yahoo! News - Army Seizes Power in Guinea-Bissau
How we trained al-Qa’eda
The Scourge of Militarism
History teaches us that the capacity for things to get worse is limitless
Pentagon skips medical testing
new economy of terrorism
In the Cold War period, we saw state-sponsored terrorism by the Soviet Union or the United States
The policy of political isolation that the United States has pursued is crazy
I think to be honest, the terrorists are now winning
a video game aimed at helping its analysts think like terrorists
Vast, Unsecure Iraqi Arms Depots Could Take Years to Dispose Of
Rusty and Radioactive
Marine Corps experience shown to enhance job prospects
A War is Nice on the Résumé, but It May Not Get You the Job
Post-Cold War US Military Expenditure in the Context of World Spending Trends
Billions for Defense, Pennies for Development - Global Policy Forum - Social and Economic Policy
Transatlantic Defense Funding Disparity Worrisome, Says Lockheed Martin Senior VP
Defense's Death Spiral The Increasing Irrelevance of More Spending - John Hillen
Turnaround in European defense expenditures
Abnormally High Number Of Lou Gehrig's Disease Cases Identified Among Gulf War Veterans
Gulf War vets risk paralyzing disease
U.S. Remains Leader in Arms Sales, Report Says
Studies link service in Gulf War to Gehrig's Disease
Mansfield resident suing feds over radioactive material
Did nuclear waste ruin land?
Toxic Rocket Fuel Found in Milk Samples from Texas Supermarkets

Risks and costs contents


The above article(s) come from and make references to a collection copyright © 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 by J.R. Mooneyham (except where otherwise noted in the text). Text here explicitly authored by J.R. Mooneyham may be freely copied and distributed for non-commercial purposes in paper and electronic form without charge if this copyright paragraph and link to jmooneyham.com or jrmooneyham.com are included.

So who is J.R. Mooneyham, and just what are his qualifications for speculating about the future of government, business, technology, and society?

You can find out by clicking here...(and also send FEEDBACK)



Back to the Table of Contents of the Signposts Timeline

Back to J.R.'s WebFLUX Page (the magazine)

Back to J.R.'s WebWork Page (A hefty catalog of links to almost everything)

Site Map for the WebFLUX and WebWork pages