hearthstone
01-01-2009, 02:25 AM
An open letter to the Obamas concerning creating a lasting peace in the Middle East, and ultimately in the whole world.
Dear people,
I am sending a letter to the Obamas about a possible way of creating a
lasting peace in the world.
Because I fear that getting a letter to them might be very difficult,
I am trying to disseminate the idea by making the letter an open one,
also hoping that, perhaps, someone who might deem the idea a worthy
one, *and* who knows of ways how to get the letter to the Obamas would
help out with delivering it.
The letter is bellow and also online at Open letter to the Obamas (https://www.modelearth.org/Obama.rtf)
(for better legibility).
Thank you, sincerely - Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
12.30.2008
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Obama,
I wish that you are well!
If we, the people, were really interested in establishing a lasting
peace in the world, we would spend more on ways that would achieve
peace non-violently than what we spend on the military!
To achieve peace in the Middle East, or anywhere in the
world―ultimately in the whole world―all the people from all the sides
of any conflict should be allowed to coherently consolidate their
ideas about what "peace" should look like, since going to war is also
a way of achieving peace―albeit only a "peace" as the individual
parties in any conflict understand it. This is because people's ideas
of what "peace" should look like are usually quite divergent and often
weakly formulated, and because the usual diplomatic ways of achieving
peace are so cumbersome and ineffective, that there seems no other way
of realizing peace but by going to war.
Today we have all the knowledge, means, and resources to make armed
conflicts wholly unnecessary. All that is needed is to allow every
individual on all sides of any conflict in the world to reconcile
their ideas of what peace should look like with all the ideas of
everybody else who are either directly, or even indirectly involved in
a conflict in models where their differences would be harmonized with
each other on the basis of all pertinent facts till a portrayal of a
peaceful co-existence would be achieved.
Modeling of whole world systems with the participation of a multitude
of people is already being done in the various online games; why not
use the basically very same process for serious purposes? The software
is available (free source, at that); so are data banks (normally used
for research and commercial purposes) that hold data of what we know
about availability of resources, about Earth ecological processes, and
of what we know about human behavior. Access to the computers could be
made possible to people even in the less developed parts of the
world―it would not be required that everybody has a PC, only that
people's input reaches the model where all the individual ideas are
compared and vetted for viability.
The whole political process would be augmented with this kind of
modeling by making it possible for every individual from every level
of the society to take a part in shaping of their future―something
that rarely is possible today; politicians would have to be mindful of
the opinion of even the very common people expressed by the modeling
process, since everybody interested in the political process could
readily see how much are the politicians veering off the course to the
ideal reality that is being depicted by the modeling process.
This modeling process would invite anyone to challenge the resulting
picture of reality as it ideally should be by making it possible to
improve on the picture, providing that any improvements would be well
backed by what is known about all the aspects of any situation in
question.
Last, but not least―the whole process could be entirely anonymous,
since not personalities, but ideas would "compete"; it would not
matter at all who puts the ideas forth. What would matter would be how
beneficial to the common weal the ideas would be! This would be quite
different from the practice today where not infrequently it is
personalities that compete in the political arena, while important
issues are being neglected.
I am aware that I am not explaining the concept quite well enough,
but, perhaps, perusing the www. ModelEarth.Org website would further
elucidate the idea that I am trying to express.
Thank you very much for your consideration,
sincerely -
Mr. Jan Hearthstone.
Dear people,
I am sending a letter to the Obamas about a possible way of creating a
lasting peace in the world.
Because I fear that getting a letter to them might be very difficult,
I am trying to disseminate the idea by making the letter an open one,
also hoping that, perhaps, someone who might deem the idea a worthy
one, *and* who knows of ways how to get the letter to the Obamas would
help out with delivering it.
The letter is bellow and also online at Open letter to the Obamas (https://www.modelearth.org/Obama.rtf)
(for better legibility).
Thank you, sincerely - Mr. Jan Hearthstone - ModelEarth.Org .
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[email protected]
12.30.2008
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Obama,
I wish that you are well!
If we, the people, were really interested in establishing a lasting
peace in the world, we would spend more on ways that would achieve
peace non-violently than what we spend on the military!
To achieve peace in the Middle East, or anywhere in the
world―ultimately in the whole world―all the people from all the sides
of any conflict should be allowed to coherently consolidate their
ideas about what "peace" should look like, since going to war is also
a way of achieving peace―albeit only a "peace" as the individual
parties in any conflict understand it. This is because people's ideas
of what "peace" should look like are usually quite divergent and often
weakly formulated, and because the usual diplomatic ways of achieving
peace are so cumbersome and ineffective, that there seems no other way
of realizing peace but by going to war.
Today we have all the knowledge, means, and resources to make armed
conflicts wholly unnecessary. All that is needed is to allow every
individual on all sides of any conflict in the world to reconcile
their ideas of what peace should look like with all the ideas of
everybody else who are either directly, or even indirectly involved in
a conflict in models where their differences would be harmonized with
each other on the basis of all pertinent facts till a portrayal of a
peaceful co-existence would be achieved.
Modeling of whole world systems with the participation of a multitude
of people is already being done in the various online games; why not
use the basically very same process for serious purposes? The software
is available (free source, at that); so are data banks (normally used
for research and commercial purposes) that hold data of what we know
about availability of resources, about Earth ecological processes, and
of what we know about human behavior. Access to the computers could be
made possible to people even in the less developed parts of the
world―it would not be required that everybody has a PC, only that
people's input reaches the model where all the individual ideas are
compared and vetted for viability.
The whole political process would be augmented with this kind of
modeling by making it possible for every individual from every level
of the society to take a part in shaping of their future―something
that rarely is possible today; politicians would have to be mindful of
the opinion of even the very common people expressed by the modeling
process, since everybody interested in the political process could
readily see how much are the politicians veering off the course to the
ideal reality that is being depicted by the modeling process.
This modeling process would invite anyone to challenge the resulting
picture of reality as it ideally should be by making it possible to
improve on the picture, providing that any improvements would be well
backed by what is known about all the aspects of any situation in
question.
Last, but not least―the whole process could be entirely anonymous,
since not personalities, but ideas would "compete"; it would not
matter at all who puts the ideas forth. What would matter would be how
beneficial to the common weal the ideas would be! This would be quite
different from the practice today where not infrequently it is
personalities that compete in the political arena, while important
issues are being neglected.
I am aware that I am not explaining the concept quite well enough,
but, perhaps, perusing the www. ModelEarth.Org website would further
elucidate the idea that I am trying to express.
Thank you very much for your consideration,
sincerely -
Mr. Jan Hearthstone.