I was browsing around in a bookstore the other day, and I heard some intense young men discussing history. At one point they spoke of the Cold War and how Ronald Reagan vanquished the Soviet Union by starting a military spending war that eventually bankrupted the Commies. One of the young men pointed out that this nearly bankrupted the US too, and that we’re still paying the price.

Later on in the day, I thought about that. As a person with training in economics (boring, I know), I realize that military spending is generally an economic deadweight, as it does not promote long-run economic growth as do infrastructural improvements such as better roads, more education, better health care, and increased scientific research. I wonder just how much economic betterment was lost because of Reagan’s “spend them into the ground” military policy of the 80s, and the Soviet response to it? But let’s not single out Ronny and the Ruskies. Let’s look at the big picture. Just how much economic potential is lost because of world-wide military spending? What would happen if all of the economic muscle devoted to tanks and canons and jet fighters could be devoted to more schools, more roads, more energy-saving innovations and more high-speed railways on a world-wide basis?

What if growth and economic opportunity increased to the point that all nations and all villages reaped at least some share of the benefits, even the most destitute areas in Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia? If everyone on the globe could learn to share the pie by playing nice, wouldn’t there then be less reason for all of the guns and bombs?

Hey, I’m not trying to be Pollyanna here. I know that it ain’t going to happen anytime soon. Since 1900 or so, the US has played an activist role in world politics because it’s good for the economy. The US wouldn’t be nearly as wealthy without access to world oil and gas reserves. It depends almost exclusively on foreign sources for strategic materials such as bauxite, platinum, tin, cobalt, potash and tungsten. And as consumers, we have developed tastes for high-quality electronic goods, diamonds and coffee — just about all imported.

If the US weren’t as willing to exert military muscle and financial intervention in world politics — i.e., if it avoided the hard ball and played fair all the time — we clearly wouldn’t have the luxuries currently available to many Americans (including myself). And despite our strength, we sometimes blithely ignore local tragedy in order to continue doing business. For example, in the Congo, the US bows to local ethnic warriors who have killed over 3 million people in the past 5 years, in order to maintain access to gold, diamonds and coltan (an essential material in cell phones). Saddam Hussein was a bloody killer, but not quite THAT bloody. However, unlike the Congolese warriors and their coltan, Saddam wouldn’t cooperate with his oil (nor with Kuwaiti oil and Saudi oil, stinker that he was). So Saddam got the 3rd Infantry, and the Congolese still go about their bloody business.

Nevertheless, I wonder. Americans are terribly innovative. If tomorrow the President were to say that the US was going to absolutely respect human rights, work for environmental sustainability and promote economic justice throughout the world, and was going to fully support the UN and avoid unilateral intervention, and was furthermore going to stop doing business with all purveyors of genocide, the US economy would clearly be in for a fall. But given 5 or 10 years, I really wonder if we wouldn’t be just as well off, given our nation’s tremendous ability to innovate, to make better use of what we get locally, and to make wiser use of what we could still get from abroad. But given all the vested interests involved, I doubt if that is going to ever happen.

The thing that scares me is that America continues to mix “one-world” technology like the Internet with its own version of tribal economic mentality. Al Qaeda has proven that any one tribe can rain death and destruction down onto any other tribe anywhere in the world. Within a decade, just about every nation and every trans-national movement like Al Qaeda (which are made possible because of the Internet) will have lightweight nuclear or biological missiles that can reach New York, Hong Kong, London, Jerusalem, Tokyo, New Delhi, you choose it, from hidden mobile launch sites such as old freighter ships. (Missile defense? extremely expensive, partly effective; as with a mosquito net, anything less than 100% can make you miserable).

Is our human race locked into some tragic set of circumstances that will soon squander every bit of progress made since the “dawn of civilization”? Are we involved in some kind of huge board game with 6 billion players and rising, organized into 250 or so “teams” (nations, ethnic tribes, transnational corporations, revolutionary movements), all which act according to a similar mix of self-interest and quest for betterment, all making generally intelligent choices, but where all of these choices combine to foment an unforeseen and unintentionally tragic outcome? And if that’s the case, as I increasingly suspect it is, then let me ask: is it too late to change it, perhaps by reducing our American thirst for a disproportionate share of the world’s resources, and at the same time sharing our wonderful technologies so as to help others leave their poverty and backwardness behind?