Revisiting "death ground" strategy?

Jerusalem as a Symbolic Singularity (Part #8)

There is however great irony to the fact that the competence of AphaGo has been framed in terms of learning to "win" -- a fundamental flaw exemplifying that of supraposition. There is little sense that there is any intention of orienting it towards "win-win" solutions -- presumably a primary requisite feature of any peace process. Its envisaged applications would appear to be exemplified by its widely publicized role in the detection of a new planet in a distant multi-planet solar system (Google discovers new planet which proves Solar System is not unique, The Telegraph, 14 December 2017; Google's artificial intelligence finds two new exoplanets missed by human eyes, The Conversation, 15 December 2017).

That announcement would appear to be timed as an unprecedented exercise in cognitive displacement and trivial pursuit -- by comparison with another made simultaneously by the UN Secretary-General to the Security Council (Dangerous rhetoric, overconfidence, increase risk of conflict on Korean Peninsula, UN chief warns, UN News Centre, 15 December 2017). There is a strange irony to the preoccupation of academia with the existence of life at a distance of 2,545 light-years -- in contrast with the indifference to the proximity of death for many as a consequence of imminent nuclear conflict -- considered increasingly probable (as indicated by the Doomsday Clock).

Given the much-vaunted anticipation of a technological singularity through the evolution of AI, will this in any way be characterized by artificial intelligence actively resisting the allocation of intelligence resources to questionable priorities -- and to "playing around", while "Earth burns" ?

Whether with respect to North Korea or the Middle East, the Security Council could do well to revisit "death ground" as articulated by Sun Tzu in The Art of War. This offers insights deemed of continuing relevance to military strategy and which have inspired a variety of interpretations, in fiction and otherwise. As a psychological phenomenon, death ground is a place of zero options. When there is no place of refuge at all, it is desperate ground. There is then no escape route -- to a distant solar system. The imminent possibility of death is then the ultimate motivator for high level achievement. The issue for the Security Council is how to engender that sense of risk in order to engage appropriately with the conditions -- rather than simply sanctioning the annihilation of others.

Is the mindset of the international community and the United Nations "too comfortable" to engender the kind of thinking required at this time? Has the UN HQ become an instance of cocooning? Comments are made to that effect (Ladan Rafii, UN Staff Won't Leave New York, HuffPost; A job at UN HQ? Goodbye principles and philanthropy, hello power and privilege! The Guardian, 4 June 2016; Lili Holzer-Glier, U.N. General Assembly 2012: Leaders Spend Millions As Their Citizens Starve, 100Reporters, 5 September 2012).

Perhaps, in addition to moving the UN HQ to Jerusalem, the UN Security Council should meet in Pyongyang in order to reframe that desperate situation. There is great irony to the fact that, without leaving its own comfort zone, the Security Council has effectively placed North Korea "on death ground", as it has done for the Palestinians. Is risk aversion to be expected of such a body when the world is placed at risk as a consequence of its decisions?

Perhaps as the epitomy of the fake-news modality, is the consistency with which the primary concern of representatives of all faiths is claimed to be the quest for peace, exemplified by regular papal pleas (Urbi et Orbi: Pope calls for peace for Jerusalem, BBC, 25 December 2017). Are these simply to be recognized as dubious forms of self-interested "virtue signalling" (Damon Young, Virtue Signalling, New Philosopher, 31 July 2017)?

The future may recognize an extraordinary complementarity between the isolation of Israel, as a consequence of the US decision rejected by the UN Security Council, and that of the isolation of North Korea, as a consequence of the UN Security Council sanctions unanimously approved following a US initiative (North Korea declares new UN sanctions are "act of war", The Guardian, 24 December 2017). The relationship is all the greater in that one decision immediately followed the other -- whatever complicities this may imply.