Suspect Identified in Ohio State Attack as Abdul Razaq Ali Artan

[mike2000 is back]

I see very little writing on what conditions prevail in Third World countries that make them breeding grounds for anarchy and civil war. Where is the discussion on:

- Why so many African/Middle Eastern nations have elected leaders who simply refuse to step down and hold elections when their terms are up?

Lol the west is also to blame for these leaders refusing to step down . so stop asking yourself questions.

 

[Khanate]

My point was not about the dearth of material available on the subject in development studies. Rather, how all political analysis is rather conveniently slanted so as to portray the Third World as the victim and the West as the perpetrator. It discounts those states (South Korea, Malaysia) that have rejected this narrative and prospered. In other words, a conspiracy of laggards and wastrels.

The economic measures you suggests will undoubtedly work in a local context of reducing crime in poorer neighbourhoods. However, it is not the panacea for the larger issues of ever-present civil war and anarchy in the countries under discussion. To think that it is a simple matter of throwing money at the problem is as inadequate as to think that poorer countries are problematic per se. What explains as to why relatively better off countries such as Tunisia, Libya, Iraq and Syria today find themselves in a position that Bhutan or Bangladesh do not? What is it about the conditions (non-economic) prevailing in these countries th at make them more prone to violence and the threat of civil war than others?

In short, you're looking for a psychoanalysis, not a socio-economic analysis, that reveal patterns which explain the nature of certain political regimes. I'm not sure how you decided to group Tunisia, Libya, Iraq and Syria since Syria is not financially well off. In fact, having visited Syria prior to 2000, I was taken aback by how high the unemployment was and how little most Syrians earned. According to one estimate, about 70% of Syrian workforce earned less than $100/month and some 700,000 households, about 3.5 million people, had no income. I'm not surprised at all that a civil war is taking place in Syria considering the disenfranchisement I saw among Sunnis.

Similar economic inequality existed in Iraq among Kurds and Shias. Libya had similar high unemployment 30% and the East, which was historically the target of Gaddafi's contempt due to the fact that it had risen up against his revolution during the 90s, rose up again this time to his demise. The central pattern, if there ever was one, is unaddressed economic grievances. That's a very strong emotion if you understand loss aversion.

Source (Syria): Library of Congress
Source (Libya): E-International Relations (‘Greed’ and ‘Grievance’ as Motivations for Civil War: The Libyan Case)

However, let's expand this conversation than limiting it to political and economic indicators. When USSR was around, politics was seen as a tool of revolution. We saw many revolutions around the world. In fact, Syria, Libya, and Iraq all followed the model of revolutionary politics to an extent. But the failure of USSR experiment led to a recognition that politics alone cannot transform a country. Private sector coupled with "innovators" have to be part of the mix. We saw many countries that were previously aligned with USSR transition to liberalizing their market, something India went through during the 90s.

So at a higher level, what we are observing in Middle East is the collapse of the "revolutionary politics" model. In the West, no one talks about political revolutions anymore. The focus is firmly on industry, jobs, innovation, entrepreneurship, etc. That's because no one believes in political revolutions as a tool of transformation. The bet is on bankers and entrepreneurs.

Stated as it is. Yes, you are right. So what again does the West have to do with the lack of checks and balances in this part of the world?

The charge against West is one of hypocrisy and deceit where you see no qualms in exploiting a country, or a system, which the West feels is open to influence and corruption while in public espousing "democratic values", whatever that means. The case of Guatemala and United Fruit Company is legendary in this regard.

From Wikipedia:

---

In 1954, the democratically elected Guatemalan government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was toppled by U.S.-backed forces led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas who invaded from Honduras. Assigned by the Eisenhower administration, this military opposition was armed, trained and organized by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (see Operation PBSUCCESS). The directors of United Fruit Company (UFCO) had lobbied to convince the Truman and Eisenhower administrations that Colonel Arbenz intended to align Guatemala with the Soviet Bloc. Besides the disputed issue of Arbenz's allegiance to Communism, UFCO was being threatened by the Arbenz government’s agrarian reform legislation and new Labor Code. UFCO was the largest Guatemalan landowner and employer, and the Arbenz government’s land reform included the expropriation of 40% of UFCO land.U.S. officials had little proof to back their claims of a growing communist threat in Guatemala; however, the relationship between the Eisenhower administration and UFCO demonstrated the influence of corporate interest on U.S. foreign policy. United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was an avowed opponent of Communism, and his law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had represented United Fruit. His brother Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA and a board member of United Fruit. United Fruit Company is the only company known to have a CIA cryptonym. The brother of the Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs, John Moors Cabot, had once been president of United Fruit. Ed Whitman, who was United Fruit’s principal lobbyist, was married to President Eisenhower's personal secretary, Ann C. Whitman. Many individuals who directly influenced U.S. policy towards Guatemala in the 1950s also had direct ties to UFCO. The overthrow of Arbenz, however, failed to benefit the Company. Its stock market value declined along with its profit margin. The Eisenhower administration proceeded with antitrust action against the company, which forced it to divest in 1958. In 1972, the company sold off the last of their Guatemalan holdings after over a decade of decline.

---

Source: United Fruit Company (now Chiquita)

If you're interested in further reading, refer to Marcelo Bucheli's excellent bibliography at United Fruit Historical Society. John Pliger mentioned the case in his documentary The War On Democracy.

The correct approach would be to ask me as to why I assume that the ethnic/linguistic/religious/tribal divisions in these places have derailed democracy. Let me explain. If you follow conflict in the entire region from Sahrawi to Afghanistan, you will find that lines are drawn on the basis of identity. Hutus against Tutsis, Christians against Muslims, Taureg against Arabs, Shias against Sunni, and so on. The episodic disregard for electoral results has also much to do with the belief that the interests of one particular tribe will be trampled upon by the incumbent. In other words, this identity-based understanding prevents genuine democracy. Secularism is just one aspect of the issue.

There isn't much to refute here. In fact, I agree with you broadly on identity politics. It is something Lee Kuan Yew has spoken on at length and his conclusion were that identity forces people to vote against their own economic interest. Current U.S. election is a manifestation of this warning. It was noted loosely in an essay at QZ. In that regard, we should be asking why should the region from Sahrawi to Afghanistan be any different?

The part that I don't buy is secularism as part of the democratic package. And I'll tell you why. Every system will have a bias. You simply cannot rid the system of bias. Whether it be the choice of fighter jet a nation buys or the changes a technocrat wants to make to a system; bias will be present. Similar bias is present is every secular system you can point out.

As for equating the culinary and linguistic chauvinism of Gujaratis in Mumbai and Tamils in Chennai with civil war and and daily body count running into hundreds/thousands - I am afraid it is false equivalence. It is not my case that you are wrong about these issues. My point is simply that equating things that are so outlandishly dis-proportionate prevents genuine enquiry. It is the same as saying that I am as culpable as a murderer because I punched someone in the face - rule of law would simply collapse if all things were treated as equal.

Point taken.

First, I'll apologise if you feel I have unfairly equivocated two different situations though if in my defense, its difficult to assess the intellect of the other person since we are on the internet. It is important, in my mind, to at least be on the same page. So I would defend the examples of tribalism I gave, in the present Indian context. They may not be as extreme but it doesn't mean the people in sub-continent are not capable of extremism. I will present the case of Pakistan and India itself. The schism in the sub-continent which led to the partition didn't occur overnight. It started with Hindi-Urdu debate coupled with centuries old grievances that morphed into whatever your historical reading of the situation may be. A very similar situation emerged with East-West Pakistan. The point, I'm making here is that we are not above Arabs and Africans. If anything, singling them out based on their identity will convolute your argument of genuine inquiry. In fact, looking at the bloodshed of World War I and World War II, I don't think even the Europeans can claim they are above anyone else. So if a genuine inquiry is to be made, it has to start with the human condition and whatever the lessons, you can localize them.

Look you are an intelligent person so I'll expand the inquiry into philosophical realm starting with a thought experiment. Imagine the most smartest Koala you can think of. His life will still be centered around living on a tree. When humans indulge in deforestation to make a disposable piece of furniture that you or I can buy, the Koala would see this act as deeply unfair and hypocritical from beings who claim to be intelligent. An intelligent being, by definition, would not harm the ecosystem that Koala depends on. If anything, the intelligent beings would preserve, or enhance, his ecosystem. If they destroy his ecosystem, the beings in question are not intelligent. However, an average human being is still more intelligent than a Koala yet neither I nor you care, or think, much about the Koala when we buy a disposable piece of furniture.

This leads to the inevitable question, one may advance in science or technology but for the benefit of who? If it benefits only you, or a small group, say the very rich, then its a myopic worldview which is what people charge the West with despite the West professing "democratic values", again whatever that means. What I'm discussing here are the philosophical ramifications of Kardashev scale of civilization. One ramification is that intelligent beings can justify their actions which means our intelligence doesn't make us more noble but it makes us better at exploitation because we can justify it, legally and morally. The imposition that pogroms of India, past and present, and what is going on in Kashmir is equivalent to a "face punch" is a continuation of the trend of justifying the unjustifiable.

Just an indicative list -

- Shias and Sunnis not being able to co-exist (Syria, Iraq, Yemen) unless placed under despotic rule (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait).
- What will happen to the remaining Alawites in Syria if and when Assad goes?
- Hezbollah in Lebanon.
- Algerian Civil War.
- Inter-tribal conflict in Libya.
- Somalia
- Ethnic cleansing by Janjaweed militia in Sudan, etc.

Kindly do not take the word "genocide" literally and read me Articles II and III of the 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide - good faith entails addressing the substance rather than the form.

I would appreciate if you can expand on how you view these conflicts because each is a unique case study so I'm interested in what you see as the uniting factor.

 

[Devil Soul]

Ohio attacker arrived in US via Pakistan: US media
By AFP
Published: November 30, 2016
7SHARES
SHARE TWEET EMAIL

Abdul Razak Artan, a third-year student in logistics management, at Ohio State PHOTO: REUTERS

The Somali student who wounded 11 people in a car-ramming and knife attack on an Ohio university campus was a “soldier” of the Islamic State group, a militant-linked news agency said Tuesday.

“The executor of the attack in the American state of Ohio is a soldier of the Islamic State,” the Amaq agency quoted an insider source as saying, according to a translation by the SITE monitoring group.

“He carried out the operation in response to calls to target citizens of international coalition countries.” Identified as a student at Ohio State University, Abdul Razak Ali Artan was shot dead by police on Monday moments after he drove his car into a crowd of pedestrians and attacked them with a butcher knife.

Ohio campus attacker identified as Muslim student angry at US interference

According to US media, Artan’s family arrived in the United States from Somalia via Pakistan in 2014. He was studying at OSU as a third-year transfer student of logistics management. In an interview a few months ago with student newspaper The Lantern, Artan had complained of the lack of Muslim prayer rooms on campus.

“If people look at me, a Muslim praying, I don’t know what they’re going to think, what’s going to happen,” he said. US media reported that a Facebook page thought to belong to him — since taken offline — included grievances against the United States.

“I can’t take it any more. America! Stop interfering with other countries, especially the Muslim Ummah. We are not weak. We are not weak, remember that,” a post quoted by ABC television said.

“If you want us Muslims to stop carrying (out) lone wolf attacks, then make peace,” the post reads. “We will not let you sleep unless you give peace to the Muslims.”

Artan also referred to Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born Al-Qaeda cleric killed in a US drone strike in Yemen, as a hero in the posting. Ohio is home to the second largest Somali community in the United States, numbering around 38,000 in in the Columbus area alone, according to the state’s Somali community association.

Pakistanis among eight Islamic State ‘militants’ arrested in Saudi Arabia

The country’s largest Somali community, in Minnesota, was rocked when one of its members stabbed 10 people at a mall in September. IS later claimed the attacker was a “soldier,” the same claim as for Artan.

 

[Jacob Martin]

In short, you're looking for a psychoanalysis, not a socio-economic analysis, that reveal patterns which explain the nature of certain political regimes. I'm not sure how you decided to group Tunisia, Libya, Iraq and Syria since Syria is not financially well off. In fact, having visited Syria prior to 2000, I was taken aback by how high the unemployment was and how little most Syrians earned. According to one estimate, about 70% of Syrian workforce earned less than $100/month and some 700,000 households, about 3.5 million people, had no income. I'm not surprised at all that a civil war is taking place in Syria considering the disenfranchisement I saw among Sunnis.

Similar economic inequality existed in Iraq among Kurds and Shias. Libya had similar high unemployment 30% and the East, which was historically the target of Gaddafi's contempt due to the fact that it had risen up against his revolution during the 90s, rose up again this time to his demise. The central pattern, if there ever was one, is unaddressed economic grievances. That's a very strong emotion if you understand loss aversion.

Source (Syria): Library of Congress
Source (Libya): E-International Relations (‘Greed’ and ‘Grievance’ as Motivations for Civil War: The Libyan Case)

However, let's expand this conversation than limiting it to political and economic indicators. When USSR was around, politics was seen as a tool of revolution. We saw many revolutions around the world. In fact, Syria, Libya, and Iraq all followed the model of revolutionary politics to an extent. But the failure of USSR experiment led to a recognition that politics alone cannot transform a country. Private sector coupled with "innovators" have to be part of the mix. We saw many countries that were previously aligned with USSR transition to liberalizing their market, something India went through during the 90s.

So at a higher level, what we are observing in Middle East is the collapse of the "revolutionary politics" model. In the West, no one talks about political revolutions anymore. The focus is firmly on industry, jobs, innovation, entrepreneurship, etc. That's because no one believes in political revolutions as a tool of transformation. The bet is on bankers and entrepreneurs.




The charge against West is one of hypocrisy and deceit where you see no qualms in exploiting a country, or a system, which the West feels is open to influence and corruption while in public espousing "democratic values", whatever that means. The case of Guatemala and United Fruit Company is legendary in this regard.

From Wikipedia:

---

In 1954, the democratically elected Guatemalan government of Colonel Jacobo Arbenz Guzmán was toppled by U.S.-backed forces led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas who invaded from Honduras. Assigned by the Eisenhower administration, this military opposition was armed, trained and organized by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (see Operation PBSUCCESS). The directors of United Fruit Company (UFCO) had lobbied to convince the Truman and Eisenhower administrations that Colonel Arbenz intended to align Guatemala with the Soviet Bloc. Besides the disputed issue of Arbenz's allegiance to Communism, UFCO was being threatened by the Arbenz government’s agrarian reform legislation and new Labor Code. UFCO was the largest Guatemalan landowner and employer, and the Arbenz government’s land reform included the expropriation of 40% of UFCO land.U.S. officials had little proof to back their claims of a growing communist threat in Guatemala; however, the relationship between the Eisenhower administration and UFCO demonstrated the influence of corporate interest on U.S. foreign policy. United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles was an avowed opponent of Communism, and his law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had represented United Fruit. His brother Allen Dulles was the director of the CIA and a board member of United Fruit. United Fruit Company is the only company known to have a CIA cryptonym. The brother of the Assistant Secretary of State for InterAmerican Affairs, John Moors Cabot, had once been president of United Fruit. Ed Whitman, who was United Fruit’s principal lobbyist, was married to President Eisenhower's personal secretary, Ann C. Whitman. Many individuals who directly influenced U.S. policy towards Guatemala in the 1950s also had direct ties to UFCO. The overthrow of Arbenz, however, failed to benefit the Company. Its stock market value declined along with its profit margin. The Eisenhower administration proceeded with antitrust action against the company, which forced it to divest in 1958. In 1972, the company sold off the last of their Guatemalan holdings after over a decade of decline.

---

Source: United Fruit Company (now Chiquita)

If you're interested in further reading, refer to Marcelo Bucheli's excellent bibliography at United Fruit Historical Society. John Pliger mentioned the case in his documentary The War On Democracy.

There isn't much to refute here. In fact, I agree with you broadly on identity politics. It is something Lee Kuan Yew has spoken on at length and his conclusion were that identity forces people to vote against their own economic interest. Current U.S. election is a manifestation of this warning. It was noted loosely in an essay at QZ. In that regard, we should be asking why should the region from Sahrawi to Afghanistan be any different?

The part that I don't buy is secularism as part of the democratic package. And I'll tell you why. Every system will have a bias. You simply cannot rid the system of bias. Whether it be the choice of fighter jet a nation buys or the changes a technocrat wants to make to a system; bias will be present. Similar bias is present is every secular system you can point out.

Point taken.

First, I'll apologise if you feel I have unfairly equivocated two different situations though if in my defense, its difficult to assess the intellect of the other person since we are on the internet. It is important, in my mind, to at least be on the same page. So I would defend that the examples of tribalism I gave, in the present Indian context. They may not be as extreme but it doesn't mean the people in sub-continent are not capable of extremism. I will present the case of Pakistan and India itself. The schism in the sub-continent which led to the partition didn't occur overnight. It started with Hindi-Urdu debate coupled with centuries old grievances that morphed into whatever your historical reading of the situation may be. A very similar situation emerged with East-West Pakistan. The point, I'm making here is that we are not above Arabs and Africans. If anything, singling them out based on their identity will convolute your argument of genuine inquiry. In fact, looking at the bloodshed of World War I and World War II, I don't think even the Europeans can claims they are above anyone else. So if a genuine inquiry is to be made, it has to start with the human condition and whatever the lessons, you can localize them.

Look you are an intelligent person so I'll expand the inquiry into philosophical realm starting with a thought experiment. Imagine the most smartest Koala you can think of. His life will still be centered around living on a tree. When humans indulge in deforestation to make a disposable piece of furniture that you or I can buy, the Koala would see this act as deeply unfair and hypocritical from beings who claim to be intelligent. An intelligent being, by definition, would not harm the ecosystem that Koala depends on. If anything, the intelligent beings would preserve, or enhance, his ecosystem. If they destroy his ecosystem, the beings in question are not intelligent. However, even an average human being is still more intelligence than a Koala yet neither I nor you care, or think, much about the Koala when we buy a disposable piece of furniture.

This lead to the inevitable question, one may advance in science or technology but for the benefit of who? If it benefits only you, or a small group, say the very rich, then its a myopic worldview which is what people charge the West with despite the West professing "democratic values", again whatever that means. What I'm discussing here are the philosophical ramifications of Kardashev scale of civilization. One ramification is that intelligent beings can justify their actions which means our intelligence doesn't make us more noble but it makes us better at exploitation because we can justify it, legally and morally. The imposition that pogroms of India, past and present, and what is going on in Kashmir is equivalent to a "face punch" is a continuation of the trend of justifying the unjustifiable.




I would appreciate if you can expand on how you view these conflicts because each is a unique case study so I'm interested in what you see as the uniting factor.

Your reply is erudite and thought-provoking. I am slightly pressed for time so please allow me a few hours to get back to you. This is an excellent discussion IMO. And hopefully I will not be banned in the meanwhile.

 

[Somali-Turk]

dude was not a refugee but a legal permanent resident of US.
This clearly looks like a lone wolf attack to me and nothing to do with his community the dude suffered from lack of socialization,pyschological problems and probably had mental illness. ,alot of white white skinheads do mass shootings for different reasons.

 

[Jacob Martin]

In short, you're looking for a psychoanalysis, not a socio-economic analysis, that reveal patterns which explain the nature of certain political regimes. I'm not sure how you decided to group Tunisia, Libya, Iraq and Syria since Syria is not financially well off. In fact, having visited Syria prior to 2000, I was taken aback by how high the unemployment was and how little most Syrians earned. According to one estimate, about 70% of Syrian workforce earned less than $100/month and some 700,000 households, about 3.5 million people, had no income. I'm not surprised at all that a civil war is taking place in Syria considering the disenfranchisement I saw among Sunnis.

Similar economic inequality existed in Iraq among Kurds and Shias. Libya had similar high unemployment 30% and the East, which was historically the target of Gaddafi's contempt due to the fact that it had risen up against his revolution during the 90s, rose up again this time to his demise. The central pattern, if there ever was one, is unaddressed economic grievances. That's a very strong emotion if you understand loss aversion.

Potemkin economy based on oil money is a hallmark of the entire region - a rent-seeking model where productive work is either not done or outsourced to migrant labour. Some, like the UAE and Qatar have done a better job of it than others. Economic disenfranchisement is undoubtedly a major factor for the ever-present potential for chaos and violence. Nonetheless, it is also true that most of these places have/had better economies and amenities than sub-Saharan Africa or even South Asia. Surely there are deep-seated issues that transcend economics, which are always simmering under the surface?

The drought in Syria that forced farmers to abandon their lands and move to the cities has been cited as a compelling factor in the Syrian War. Be as it may, I don't see how it addresses the question as to how the Alawites in Syria, the Ba'athists in Iraq, the Al Saud clan in SA, the Qadhadhfa Tribe in Libya, and all the ruling cliques in these countries were able to hijack power and disenfranchise others so effortlessly. And the experience in SA, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain shows that it is not just about poverty - dictatorial rule seems to be a natural fit. I think the present situation has built up as a result of this natural affinity towards exclusivism - the stakes keep getting higher and the pressure keeps building until it ultimately erupts. Large scale unemployment, chronic neglect of entire regions and ethno-religious groups - these are not the cause, but the symptoms of something deeper.

Mind you, whatever you have cited about the economic situation in the Arab world is present in a worse form in South Asia. Which brings us to the question as to why such unequal and unjust socio-economic systems continue to subsist in this part of the world. We have not really changed our ways and methods long after independence placed our fate in our own hands. How much of it is internal, and how much of it can be laid at the door-step of the "outsider"? This point is related to the question of blaming the Western World for all our ills.

The charge against West is one of hypocrisy and deceit where you see no qualms in exploiting a country, or a system, which the West feels is open to influence and corruption...

Let me point out the myth of how Imperialism destroyed the economic supremacy of the East. There has been a long-running myth that India and China were economic giants before the advent of Imperial subjugation. And yet, the fact is that by 1700, per capita GDP in these two countries was less than half of Western Europe. If the answer lies in the Industrial revolution and modern banking, then it begets a further question as to what conditions prevailed in order for these developments, as they are not mere accidents. If the Western and Eastern World had continued their trajectories at that point without intersecting by way of Imperialism, we would still end up right where we are, or worse. Open trade would have ensured that raw materials are shipped out and re-sold to the poor countries as finished goods and foreign investment flows into these countries in a relentless quest for cheap labour.

...while in public espousing "democratic values", whatever that means. The case of Guatemala and United Fruit Company is legendary in this regard.

Recent history is littered with such instances. For example, the Iranian Coup of 1953, which ultimately paved way for the current regime in Tehran, was engineered by the UK and US to safeguard oil interests following the nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The list is really too long to bother. Yet, if we take it as a given that any power that can interfere to forward perceived interests will do so, that still leaves the question as to how they are allowed to do so.

Not every interference by the West in the Developing World has been by way of military threats. Yet, they find it easy to saunter in and do as they please - sometimes with desirable results and at other times unleashing a chain of unintended consequences. And we make no honest assessment of ourselves as a society, which resulted in everything from falling behind in the quest for knowledge, to Imperialism, and today resulting in a world order dictated by the West.

Our exploitation as consumers and providers of cheap labour and natural resources is the result of our inability to become anything better. We have been behind in this race for half a millennia. If Colonialism had not opened up the East and South to Western subjugation, they would have still lost out due to lack of modern industry and technology. Hand-woven cloth couldn't compete with textile mills, ox-carts and horse-drawn carriages couldn't do the work of Railways, and swords and arrows couldn't repel muskets and cannons. If and when the East did adopt new ways, they occasionally surprised everyone - such as Japan during the Meiji Restoration and subsequent victory in the Russo-Japanese War.

Even going forward, what is the scope for poor countries to participate in the World Order except to provide markets, labour and materials? The West controls Intellectual Property - the key to the future. Unless we evolve a new paradigm in which we become equal participants in generating intellectual property, all we can do is hope for work visas, investment in sweat shops, and that someone comes along to extract our commodities and pays us for it. We are still waging yesterdays wars today - debating whether everyone should have access to schools when the debate has moved to distance and e-learning. Pushing for thermal power plants when the need for renewable energy was never clearer. Pondering how to provide basic healthcare to citizens when the West has already moved to eliminate generic drugs wherever they can.

All the factors that allow the West to dictate terms are just external manifestations of advances in political, educational, social and institutional models. Unless we do some serious re-adjustment to our view-point, and start asking as to how they made the advances that allowed them to bully the poor nations, instead of focusing on the end result (both real and imagined), I see little scope for change.

The part that I don't buy is secularism as part of the democratic package. And I'll tell you why. Every system will have a bias. You simply cannot rid the system of bias. Whether it be the choice of fighter jet a nation buys or the changes a technocrat wants to make to a system; bias will be present. Similar bias is present is every secular system you can point out.

I would like to point out that bias can only be minimized, not eliminated. Basing a state in non-religious principles does away with the greatest potential seeds of discord and bias - the religious identity of its majority. A state based in religion is hobbled with strife at inception. The only way forward is to either eliminate of subjugate all other identities. Secularism in the form of separation of Church and state is the basis for allowing equal protection of law and equal rights to everyone. Is there a non-secular country in the world that even notionally provides these two things to all its residents?

So I would defend the examples of tribalism I gave, in the present Indian context. They may not be as extreme but it doesn't mean the people in sub-continent are not capable of extremism. I will present the case of Pakistan and India itself. The schism in the sub-continent which led to the partition didn't occur overnight. It started with Hindi-Urdu debate coupled with centuries old grievances that morphed into whatever your historical reading of the situation may be. A very similar situation emerged with East-West Pakistan. The point, I'm making here is that we are not above Arabs and Africans. If anything, singling them out based on their identity will convolute your argument of genuine inquiry. In fact, looking at the bloodshed of World War I and World War II, I don't think even the Europeans can claim they are above anyone else. So if a genuine inquiry is to be made, it has to start with the human condition and whatever the lessons, you can localize them.

I agree that identity-based divisions are well pronounced in the sub-continent as well. Dalit-Brahmin, Shia-Sunni, Hindi-local languages, Urdu-Punjabi-Sindhi-Pashto, Hindu-Muslim, Christian-Hindu, Muslim-Christian....the list goes on. It does create a fragmented society with much potential for conflict. And the language of divisiveness also keeps changing - a move to declare an entire population as "non-Muslims" may propel an issue that was simmering under the surface into sharp focus, and cause violence. I am also quite concerned about the faux-nationalism that is encroaching upon India at the moment - which is a consensus of a few being imposed upon the majority. I hope this will quickly fade away though.

Having said that, these divisions need to be addressed, and the first step in that direction are laws and policies. Social engineering is a long process and all we can hope is that unexpected developments do not reverse its course, or cause latent issues to erupt in violence. In this, our report card is slightly better than that of the Arabs. The majority Sinhala population did not trample upon the rights of the Tamils after the Civil War ended. Recently, the Madhesis demanded changes to the new Nepalese Constitution - their demands have been partially met. In India, Reservation policy has tried to redress the socio-economic imbalance between castes, and various laws have been enacted to protect rights of Dalits. Although the problem will not really go away unless caste system is abolished all together.

Contrast this with the Arab world. How many people not living there even know that Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis living in the Gulf, who easily outnumber locals, don't have citizenship rights? Such gross injustices are normal over there, and no one bats an eyelid. Gradually, unjust and exclusivist actions become so entrenched that it leads to the current delusion - where apparently the Middle-East was a paradise spoilt by the meddlesome West. There are brave voices fighting to change the situation in the Arab world - but they are few and far between. Equal protection of law, equal rights for all, citizenship to expatriates who form the majority of the population - these things should not be issues for activism, but enshrined in every Constitution. Instead, the Arab world lives in its own alternate reality where apparently there are no consequences to disenfranchising major parts of the population.

Look you are an intelligent person so I'll expand the inquiry into philosophical realm starting with a thought experiment. Imagine the most smartest Koala you can think of. His life will still be centered around living on a tree. When humans indulge in deforestation to make a disposable piece of furniture that you or I can buy, the Koala would see this act as deeply unfair and hypocritical from beings who claim to be intelligent. An intelligent being, by definition, would not harm the ecosystem that Koala depends on. If anything, the intelligent beings would preserve, or enhance, his ecosystem. If they destroy his ecosystem, the beings in question are not intelligent. However, an average human being is still more intelligent than a Koala yet neither I nor you care, or think, much about the Koala when we buy a disposable piece of furniture.

This leads to the inevitable question, one may advance in science or technology but for the benefit of who? If it benefits only you, or a small group, say the very rich, then its a myopic worldview which is what people charge the West with despite the West professing "democratic values", again whatever that means. What I'm discussing here are the philosophical ramifications of Kardashev scale of civilization. One ramification is that intelligent beings can justify their actions which means our intelligence doesn't make us more noble but it makes us better at exploitation because we can justify it, legally and morally. The imposition that pogroms of India, past and present, and what is going on in Kashmir is equivalent to a "face punch" is a continuation of the trend of justifying the unjustifiable.

I think there has been an interplay between developments in politics, science and society. One effects the other, leading to a cascading series of events, which in turn comes the impetus for further change. Like a feedback loop. Scientific inquiry could not have happened unless freed from the clutches of the Church, and science in turn shaped our outlook towards religion. The Industrial Revolutions provided the means for Imperialism and the modern nation state, which in turn enabled them to introduce laws and transformation on a scale not possible earlier. It continues to be so today, and will remain so in the future.

Kardashev Scale of energy-based evaluation is neutral about morality/ethics per se. There are other groups - such a those who believe in Post-Singularity and Transhumanism. In economics, there is an emerging school that deals with a future which will not be based on the prerennial constraints of scarcity, which is called post-scarcity economics. None of these mention morality/ethics, although I think that the general trend in the past is overall positive. Disregard for a second as to how many people are poor and actually go hungry in the world. But we do have a universal acknowledgment that poverty and hunger are abominable and need to be rectified. I don't think this acknowledgment could have come about unless science, technology and industrialization had lifted so many out of the clutches of poverty and hunger in the last two centuries, aided further by ancillary processes like education, healthcare, reasonable governance etc. The social security that the West has is a sum-total of all these accomplishments.

Yes, I am concerned that we are do not really put much work into the task of shaping the future, and leave it to arbitrary forces. The consequences could be bad. Relentless accumulation of intellectual property and sophisticated financial systems in a knowledge-based economy could create a world of haves and have-nots unlike anything we have seen. The spectre of mass unemployment ushered in by automation and AI could lead to great unrest. Surveillance technology could give rise to a Police State which will take away all rights, in the name of providing security.

Unfortunately, our efforts at analyzing these developments are very narrowly circumscribed. Technologists tend to believe that technology will automatically set things right. Lawyers think it is all about making laws; economists study these developments using conventional models that are totally outmoded. Sociologists, political scientists and other skeptics are almost exclusively concerned with the negative aspects such as possible upheavals and loss of freedom, while politicians as always simply wait for an opportunity worth exploiting to present itself. All this is like looking for the lost key not where it was dropped, but where there is light. It requires a synergy where those who are optimistic about the future listen carefully to those who are sounding a word of caution, and vice versa.

I would appreciate if you can expand on how you view these conflicts because each is a unique case study so I'm interested in what you see as the uniting factor.

Without going into the interplay of these factors, here are the ones I could immediately identify. Again, the fact that other parts of the world may share some of these attributes is incidental.

- Family/clan/tribal/ethnic/religious identity over-riding all other factors of decision-making.
- A culture of "might is right" where material dominance is viewed as an end in itself, unless deposed of by another, in which case a hypocritical wailing against injustice will start.
- Ad hoc rule of law which has so many layers that one can simply pick-and-choose the one they feel like using at that particular moment.
- Intolerance to dissent, which must invariably be crushed (at worst) or ignored (at best).
- An unsustainable form of rent-seeking economics coupled with socialism, based on (mostly) oil wealth. There is negligible scope for stepping out of this model.
- No real debate about the demerits of autocracy/despotism that is the default political system in the Arab world. Some may argue that in certain cases it is benevolent and benign but it is despotism nonetheless.
- No freedom or equality for women, minorities and migrants. The Arab world is so used to having an underclass that it is not even a subject of discussion as to what it ultimately leads to.
- Using religion as a tool for manipulating everything from diplomacy, governance to economics and society. What should at best be only one aspect of human existence has become the defining feature that (notionally) controls all.

 

[Khanate]

I took some time to earnestly evaluate your arguments because initially I thought some of them didn't fit — I'll address issues you have raised independently so there is more clarity. Since you put a lot of thought into this debate so I took time to self-falsify my rebuttals and the key takeaway was that there is no real argument against an egalitarian, or inclusive, society except that we may be falling for the magic bullet thinking where one looks to elegant solutions (E=mc2) or a single change to fix the system. Even then the net benefits of egalitarianism outweighs the magic bullet fallacy. What's the worst that can happen? More protection for minorities and women? It doesn't sound all that bad.

Potemkin economy based on oil money is a hallmark of the entire region - a rent-seeking model where productive work is either not done or outsourced to migrant labour. Some, like the UAE and Qatar have done a better job of it than others. Economic disenfranchisement is undoubtedly a major factor for the ever-present potential for chaos and violence. Nonetheless, it is also true that most of these places have/had better economies and amenities than sub-Saharan Africa or even South Asia. Surely there are deep-seated issues that transcend economics, which are always simmering under the surface?

Guest worker programs (GWP) are common across GCC but I would argue that they have been good for GCC citizens. Obviously, terrible for foreign workers because it create a subordinate class at the bottom rung of the society — these are perfect conditions for exploitation. On the flip side, GWP provide indigenous population with an opportunity to climb the wealth ladder.

Also, GCC is not the group we initially focused on. It was Tunisia, Libya, Iraq and Syria. And barring Libya, none of the countries mentioned above had a popular guest worker program like the ones operated by GCC. And GCC hasn't been impacted by Arab spring. There is Bahrain, of course, but its not representative of the broader trend in GCC which is stability over all else. What gives?

One thing that unites Syria, Libya and Iraq is the fact they went through political revolutions during the Cold War and were aligned with the socialist USSR. The collapse of USSR has meant the collapse of their ideologies and revolutions. We can include Egypt in that list — another USSR aligned socialist regime that fell during the Arab spring. GCC did not go through socialist revolution. Ergo, it remains unscathed by Arab spring.

The drought in Syria that forced farmers to abandon their lands and move to the cities has been cited as a compelling factor in the Syrian War. Be as it may, I don't see how it addresses the question as to how the Alawites in Syria, the Ba'athists in Iraq, the Al Saud clan in SA, the Qadhadhfa Tribe in Libya, and all the ruling cliques in these countries were able to hijack power and disenfranchise others so effortlessly. And the experience in SA, UAE, Kuwait, Qatar and Bahrain shows that it is not just about poverty - dictatorial rule seems to be a natural fit. I think the present situation has built up as a result of this natural affinity towards exclusivism - the stakes keep getting higher and the pressure keeps building until it ultimately erupts. Large scale unemployment, chronic neglect of entire regions and ethno-religious groups - these are not the cause, but the symptoms of something deeper.

I'm sure you won't conflate Pakistan with India, or India with Bangladesh, because you understand subtle cultural differences. Likewise, Khaleej (GCC) is culturally different from the rest of Middle East so I'm not entirely sure how House of Saud have crept into your argument. Even the transfer of power is different in KSA. Had Qaddafi and Saddam survived, the power would have undoubtedly gone to their sons as it has in Syria with Bashar al-Assad. While in KSA, power is transferred from one brother to another, as is evident with Sudairi Seven. Essentially, power does not stay in the same family and some are more progressive than others. Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud is one example.

Excluding Bahrain, I'm curious to see how you apply your thesis of exclusivism on GCC because GCC is comprised of predominantly Sunni states ruled by Sunni monarchs who have been part of the landscape for centuries. They are not seen as outsiders (Alawites) implementing a foreign ideology (Ba'athism-Iraq/Syria, Socialism-Libya/Egypt, et al.). You can point to the exclusion of women from the workforce but GCC women haven't taken up arms, yet. Meanwhile, a clear case can be made for Syria and Iraq but, in economic terms, it would be hard to make that case in GCC.

Mind you, whatever you have cited about the economic situation in the Arab world is present in a worse form in South Asia. Which brings us to the question as to why such unequal and unjust socio-economic systems continue to subsist in this part of the world.

Arab world is not a monolith. GCC countries share their oil wealth with the citizens. In fact, one of the leading criticism of GCC is for them to get their citizens off social benefits and into the workforce. I'm playing devil's advocate here.

We have not really changed our ways and methods long after independence placed our fate in our own hands. How much of it is internal, and how much of it can be laid at the door-step of the "outsider"? This point is related to the question of blaming the Western World for all our ills.

I did not blame the West for all our ills.

I limited my critique to the charge of hypocrisy and deceit. That is based on the fact that in public the West professes to promote "democratic values" while undermining other democracies and rule of law. I would appreciate if you can you point out what is wrong with this critique? It seems fair to me.

Let me point out the myth of how Imperialism destroyed the economic supremacy of the East. There has been a long-running myth that India and China were economic giants before the advent of Imperial subjugation. And yet, the fact is that by 1700, per capita GDP in these two countries was less than half of Western Europe. If the answer lies in the Industrial revolution and modern banking, then it begets a further question as to what conditions prevailed in order for these developments, as they are not mere accidents. If the Western and Eastern World had continued their trajectories at that point without intersecting by way of Imperialism, we would still end up right where we are, or worse. Open trade would have ensured that raw materials are shipped out and re-sold to the poor countries as finished goods and foreign investment flows into these countries in a relentless quest for cheap labour.

Without falling for the red herring here, I'll refer you to Kaushik Basu:

Read: Former World Bank chief economist Kaushik Basu sounds warning (The Sydney Morning Herald)

In short, its not a labour vs labour problem. Its a capital vs labour problem. Even if the West had industrialised sooner, the market would be so small and the goods so expensive that there would be few consumers. This leads to "globalisation" in order to produce more affordable goods with cheaper labour that are available to a wider cross-section of the society. This, in turn, creates skill shortages since industry moves more rapidly and workers can't keep pace with innovation which means you need a transferable and transportable workforce. We are grappling with these issues increasingly as we globalise.

Incidentally, this was predicted by Lenin in his book Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism. He termed the idea of worker migration a "special feature" of imperialism. In the long term, our current pattern of globalisation leads to an isolated section of the society becoming more privileged (1%) which creates more unequal and less egalitarian society over time since the 1% will eventually want to increase their gains by manipulating the system. In US, money in politics has already become a huge problem.

Having fallen spectacularly for the red herring, despite my pledge to avoid it, what China and Hindustan experienced was Colonialism. Shashi Tharoor, not a fan because he is prone to fudging facts, presented a colorful rhetoric of the colonial experience and the exploitation:

Recent history is littered with such instances. For example, the Iranian Coup of 1953, which ultimately paved way for the current regime in Tehran, was engineered by the UK and US to safeguard oil interests following the nationalization of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. The list is really too long to bother. Yet, if we take it as a given that any power that can interfere to forward perceived interests will do so, that still leaves the question as to how they are allowed to do so.

Civic discourse? No means no.

Not every interference by the West in the Developing World has been by way of military threats. Yet, they find it easy to saunter in and do as they please - sometimes with desirable results and at other times unleashing a chain of unintended consequences. And we make no honest assessment of ourselves as a society, which resulted in everything from falling behind in the quest for knowledge, to Imperialism, and today resulting in a world order dictated by the West.

I'll give you a science-based rebuttal than an opinion:

Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond

And if you don't enjoy reading:

Episode 1:

Episode 2:

Episode 3:

Our exploitation as consumers and providers of cheap labour and natural resources is the result of our inability to become anything better. We have been behind in this race for half a millennia. If Colonialism had not opened up the East and South to Western subjugation, they would have still lost out due to lack of modern industry and technology. Hand-woven cloth couldn't compete with textile mills, ox-carts and horse-drawn carriages couldn't do the work of Railways, and swords and arrows couldn't repel muskets and cannons. If and when the East did adopt new ways, they occasionally surprised everyone - such as Japan during the Meiji Restoration and subsequent victory in the Russo-Japanese War.

You are selectively applying critical theory — only on the subjugated but not the perpetrators. The problem with your narrative is the same of that of the rapist's defense, i.e., it is morally and ethically indefensible — she may have said no but I raped her anyway because I have more physical strength. Similarly, the Hindustanis, Chinese, and Africans, Filipinos, Vietnamese, etc. may have said no but were colonised anyways. This validates my critique of deceit and hypocrisy. If your ideas are superior, why the need to colonise? And if might is right, and you colonise, then you are indulging in deceit and hypocrisy.

This pattern is consistent with the philosophical ramification of Kardashev scale of civilization, i.e., intelligence doesn't make us more noble (Are you thinking about the Koala?). Instead, it makes us better at exploitation because we can justify it, legally and morally. Can't pay minimum wage in America or Germany? Go to Bangladesh. Rana Plaza? We knew nothing about it, the Bangladeshi owner was exploiting fellow Bangladeshis (at our behest).

Off topic, a recent documentary explores the elaborate chain that connects environmental degradation to worker exploitation and the way forward, worth a watch:

The True Cost (Full Documentary).

I'm not asking you to agree with me just explore the ideas I'm presenting.

Even going forward, what is the scope for poor countries to participate in the World Order except to provide markets, labour and materials? The West controls Intellectual Property - the key to the future. Unless we evolve a new paradigm in which we become equal participants in generating intellectual property, all we can do is hope for work visas, investment in sweat shops, and that someone comes along to extract our commodities and pays us for it. We are still waging yesterdays wars today - debating whether everyone should have access to schools when the debate has moved to distance and e-learning. Pushing for thermal power plants when the need for renewable energy was never clearer. Pondering how to provide basic healthcare to citizens when the West has already moved to eliminate generic drugs wherever they can.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

I would put the urgency much higher given the rise of automation, algorithms and AI. The difference is I'm optimistic because if Indus and Ganges can spawn great civilization in the past, they can do so again. What is clear is that we can't get there without education. India has invested in education and is reaping the rewards. Pakistan needs to do a much better job.

All the factors that allow the West to dictate terms are just external manifestations of advances in political, educational, social and institutional models. Unless we do some serious re-adjustment to our view-point, and start asking as to how they made the advances that allowed them to bully the poor nations, instead of focusing on the end result (both real and imagined), I see little scope for change.

Fair point.

The narrative I've forwarded in my previous arguments is a modification of critical race theory (CRT), which is specific to US. One tenant of CRT is for people to develop their own counter narrative to regain their faculties of critical thinking and analysis. Take Hitler for an example. To the West, he is the worst human being but what did Hitler do to British India? How many Indians did he kills? If anything, his buffoonery led to the collapse of colonial empires which freed subjugated people across the world. If seen through Utilitarianism, Hitler becomes a political agent of change. Meanwhile, Churchill becomes a villain for his role in the Bengal famine of 1943. Again, not saying Hitler was good — I don't actually believe that but the outcome was good for the oppressed people of the planet. He was undoubtedly cruel to Europeans so he remains evil to them. But in order to accept the European narrative, you have to accept that Churchill, the liberator of Europeans, was a hero. Its a packaged deal. In short, in my opinion when people can develop their own narratives or counter-narratives, you can chart out the trajectory of advancement.

Read: Churchill's Secret War by Madhusree Mukerjee

I would like to point out that bias can only be minimized, not eliminated. Basing a state in non-religious principles does away with the greatest potential seeds of discord and bias - the religious identity of its majority. A state based in religion is hobbled with strife at inception. The only way forward is to either eliminate of subjugate all other identities. Secularism in the form of separation of Church and state is the basis for allowing equal protection of law and equal rights to everyone. Is there a non-secular country in the world that even notionally provides these two things to all its residents?

This is the standard secularist response and I've hashed out these arguments before. To begin, secularism doesn't mean fairness. Polygamous marriages in much of the West are against the law, Singapore bans Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. these are states that proclaim they are 'secular'. In short, Secularism ≠ Fairness. Essentially, someone is deciding what is right and wrong. A person decides whether abortions should be legal or not even though Christians may be opposed to it. In case of South Asia, we face a gender imbalance because of that decision.

More importantly, secularism equates Hinduism with Buddhism, Islam with Christianity, etc. Now this may sound reasonable but the world is not a reasonable place. Sooner or later, someone wants to equate Hinduism, Islam, Christianity with Scientology, Church of Satan and Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because they can.

What you get and what you don't get. The only real difference secularism is making is its shifting some of the decision making to the judiciary. You can do that even without secularism.

I agree that identity-based divisions are well pronounced in the sub-continent as well. Dalit-Brahmin, Shia-Sunni, Hindi-local languages, Urdu-Punjabi-Sindhi-Pashto, Hindu-Muslim, Christian-Hindu, Muslim-Christian....the list goes on. It does create a fragmented society with much potential for conflict. And the language of divisiveness also keeps changing - a move to declare an entire population as "non-Muslims" may propel an issue that was simmering under the surface into sharp focus, and cause violence. I am also quite concerned about the faux-nationalism that is encroaching upon India at the moment - which is a consensus of a few being imposed upon the majority. I hope this will quickly fade away though.

Having said that, these divisions need to be addressed, and the first step in that direction are laws and policies. Social engineering is a long process and all we can hope is that unexpected developments do not reverse its course, or cause latent issues to erupt in violence. In this, our report card is slightly better than that of the Arabs. The majority Sinhala population did not trample upon the rights of the Tamils after the Civil War ended. Recently, the Madhesis demanded changes to the new Nepalese Constitution - their demands have been partially met. In India, Reservation policy has tried to redress the socio-economic imbalance between castes, and various laws have been enacted to protect rights of Dalits. Although the problem will not really go away unless caste system is abolished all together.

Eloquently put.

There is a positive side here. Isolation accelerates racism. The reason why some Afghans, Indians, Pakistanis, Americans or Europeans may be prone to racism/discrimination is because they live in heterogeneous communities. They simply lack passive resistance and hence are more prone to racism. One builds passive resistance if one lives in a multi-ethnic society. For example, Karachi is a melting pot of Pakistan. In neighbourhoods where Pashtuns, Mohajirs, Baloch, Punjabi, Christians, Hindus and Parsis live side by side, they build passive resistance towards one another even if they don't interact much. The mere act of watching one another do ordinary things has the effect of humanizing "the other". In this regard, people living in heterogeneous communities or remote areas have limited exposure so racism becomes a natural outcome.

I can post a link to the scientific paper that theorize the concept of resistance building in a racial setting, if you are interested.

Contrast this with the Arab world. How many people not living there even know that Indians/Pakistanis/Bangladeshis living in the Gulf, who easily outnumber locals, don't have citizenship rights? Such gross injustices are normal over there, and no one bats an eyelid. Gradually, unjust and exclusivist actions become so entrenched that it leads to the current delusion - where apparently the Middle-East was a paradise spoilt by the meddlesome West. There are brave voices fighting to change the situation in the Arab world - but they are few and far between. Equal protection of law, equal rights for all, citizenship to expatriates who form the majority of the population - these things should not be issues for activism, but enshrined in every Constitution. Instead, the Arab world lives in its own alternate reality where apparently there are no consequences to disenfranchising major parts of the population.

1. There is no defense of human rights violations of the foreign workers.

2. Exclusivism does create barriers but you can't equate it to apathy. In fact, GCC is fairly empathetic.

Source: The most empathetic countries in the world have just been ranked (ScienceAlert)

3. I see where you going and it makes a certain amount of sense, i.e., if you accept small injustices, you are primed to accept much bigger injustices. But then how do you turn around and give a free pass to the West when you have the example of Iraq? That's a contradiction. What I'm asking is if West redressed small injustices, should we ignore much bigger injustices?

I think there has been an interplay between developments in politics, science and society. One effects the other, leading to a cascading series of events, which in turn comes the impetus for further change. Like a feedback loop. Scientific inquiry could not have happened unless freed from the clutches of the Church, and science in turn shaped our outlook towards religion. The Industrial Revolutions provided the means for Imperialism and the modern nation state, which in turn enabled them to introduce laws and transformation on a scale not possible earlier. It continues to be so today, and will remain so in the future.

Kardashev Scale of energy-based evaluation is neutral about morality/ethics per se. There are other groups - such a those who believe in Post-Singularity and Transhumanism. In economics, there is an emerging school that deals with a future which will not be based on the prerennial constraints of scarcity, which is called post-scarcity economics. None of these mention morality/ethics, although I think that the general trend in the past is overall positive. Disregard for a second as to how many people are poor and actually go hungry in the world. But we do have a universal acknowledgment that poverty and hunger are abominable and need to be rectified. I don't think this acknowledgment could have come about unless science, technology and industrialization had lifted so many out of the clutches of poverty and hunger in the last two centuries, aided further by ancillary processes like education, healthcare, reasonable governance etc. The social security that the West has is a sum-total of all these accomplishments.

Yes, I am concerned that we are do not really put much work into the task of shaping the future, and leave it to arbitrary forces. The consequences could be bad. Relentless accumulation of intellectual property and sophisticated financial systems in a knowledge-based economy could create a world of haves and have-nots unlike anything we have seen. The spectre of mass unemployment ushered in by automation and AI could lead to great unrest. Surveillance technology could give rise to a Police State which will take away all rights, in the name of providing security.

Unfortunately, our efforts at analyzing these developments are very narrowly circumscribed. Technologists tend to believe that technology will automatically set things right. Lawyers think it is all about making laws; economists study these developments using conventional models that are totally outmoded. Sociologists, political scientists and other skeptics are almost exclusively concerned with the negative aspects such as possible upheavals and loss of freedom, while politicians as always simply wait for an opportunity worth exploiting to present itself. All this is like looking for the lost key not where it was dropped, but where there is light. It requires a synergy where those who are optimistic about the future listen carefully to those who are sounding a word of caution, and vice versa.

Never said Kardashev scale is about morality, far from it. What I did say was that Kardashev scale has a set of philosophical ramifications in that if you are planet-hoping without consideration for ecology then it invariably raises a set of interesting questions. Just as the theory of evolution does not directly offer any philosophical point of views but you can draw parallels between the theory of evolution and the big bang — evolution for the universe. I picked up some of the philosophical dialogue on Kardashev scale while reading through Isaac Asimov's work. Not sure if you're into it but The Last Question is a short story and a good one to start from.