3 ms·

The Butlerian Jihad won't be successful. Tech creates wealth and often concentrates power. The elites will push ahead with tech development. Power imbalance in

The Butlerian Jihad won't be successful. Tech creates wealth and often concentrates power. The elites will push ahead with tech development. Power imbalance in our current society means they will succeed if people do not resist in unison. Tech also has a lot of economic benefits so regular people will be divided on the Jihad.

frozenport 9y ago
Perhaps when the ~100,000 rich people kill off the poor (using technology), we can establish an Aristotelian utopia?
- olewhalehunter 9y ago
  Or keep them alive and use their bodies to harvest organs and genetic/nanomaterial capital.
- throw22817 9y ago
  Rich people are not evil. Some may be. Most are not, at least not to the extent you imply. Many rich people are doing good things with their money and time. They have the power to resist the evil ones.
  - PhasmaFelis 9y ago
    > They have the power to resist the evil ones. Wonderful. When are they planning to start? I don't mean to condemn them, genuinely charitable billionaires are doing a lot to improve living conditions around the world, but most of them aren't doing much to oppose the people who use their money to buy laws, lawmakers, and governments. (What they even could do without using the same corrupt tools is an open question.) A world with no hunger, no disease, and an absolute dictatorship of the wealthy is no utopia.
  - joe_the_user 9y ago
    How would the good rich people resist the evil rich people? Perhaps by striking first and eliminating them? You see where it goes? A structure where anyone can build a world-destroying monster implies that anyone remotely evil has to be destroyed, right? But that suddenly starts to look exactly like the program of "evil". It seems like future will look like: benevolent dictatorship, butlarian jihad or end of humanity (and I wouldn't bet on robot survival either).
- angersock 9y ago
  I think you're the only person in the thread who actually gets it. The true danger of robots for mass combat is that it moves the power squarely into Capital and away from Labor. As long as humans are in the equation, you can always have troopers (and the populace that birthed/supports them) say "No more, this conflict must cease". If war becomes a matter of some rich asshole turning the murderbot factory knob a little higher to deal with the riffraff, we're in trouble.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - foota 9y ago
    Has "No more, this conflict must cease" ever happened?
    - qw 9y ago
      It contributed to USA pulling out of the war in Vietnam
    - duncan_bayne 9y ago
      Very regularly, throughout history. To take one example, there were numerous mutinies during WWI and commanders had to take great care to keep the war going. Britain was pretty much the only European power that _didn't_ encounter serious mutinies. http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-great-war/great-war-on-land/britain-allies/416-brit-mutiny.html http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-great-war/great-w...
    - swsieber 9y ago
      Well, you've had war protests and resisting a draft. In a different manner, there was the Christmas truce of 1914. I think though on a different scale, if your people aren't out there dying, it's easy to forget about the massacre and tryranny your country might be perpetrating. The out of sight out of mind problem.
  - jjoonathan 9y ago
    Alternative hypothesis: once robotics hits a point where it's possible for an average person (or small group of people) to own the capital necessary to carve out a decent life (by modern standards), labor starts splintering away from the global economy en masse. With their foundations gone, the pyramids schemes crumble, and Capital is the one caught out.

frozenport 9y ago

Perhaps when the ~100,000 rich people kill off the poor (using technology), we can establish an Aristotelian utopia?

olewhalehunter 9y ago
Or keep them alive and use their bodies to harvest organs and genetic/nanomaterial capital.
throw22817 9y ago
Rich people are not evil. Some may be. Most are not, at least not to the extent you imply. Many rich people are doing good things with their money and time. They have the power to resist the evil ones.
- PhasmaFelis 9y ago
  > They have the power to resist the evil ones. Wonderful. When are they planning to start? I don't mean to condemn them, genuinely charitable billionaires are doing a lot to improve living conditions around the world, but most of them aren't doing much to oppose the people who use their money to buy laws, lawmakers, and governments. (What they even could do without using the same corrupt tools is an open question.) A world with no hunger, no disease, and an absolute dictatorship of the wealthy is no utopia.
- joe_the_user 9y ago
  How would the good rich people resist the evil rich people? Perhaps by striking first and eliminating them? You see where it goes? A structure where anyone can build a world-destroying monster implies that anyone remotely evil has to be destroyed, right? But that suddenly starts to look exactly like the program of "evil". It seems like future will look like: benevolent dictatorship, butlarian jihad or end of humanity (and I wouldn't bet on robot survival either).
angersock 9y ago
I think you're the only person in the thread who actually gets it. The true danger of robots for mass combat is that it moves the power squarely into Capital and away from Labor. As long as humans are in the equation, you can always have troopers (and the populace that birthed/supports them) say "No more, this conflict must cease". If war becomes a matter of some rich asshole turning the murderbot factory knob a little higher to deal with the riffraff, we're in trouble.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- foota 9y ago
  Has "No more, this conflict must cease" ever happened?
  - qw 9y ago
    It contributed to USA pulling out of the war in Vietnam
  - duncan_bayne 9y ago
    Very regularly, throughout history. To take one example, there were numerous mutinies during WWI and commanders had to take great care to keep the war going. Britain was pretty much the only European power that _didn't_ encounter serious mutinies. http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-great-war/great-war-on-land/britain-allies/416-brit-mutiny.html http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-great-war/great-w...
  - swsieber 9y ago
    Well, you've had war protests and resisting a draft. In a different manner, there was the Christmas truce of 1914. I think though on a different scale, if your people aren't out there dying, it's easy to forget about the massacre and tryranny your country might be perpetrating. The out of sight out of mind problem.
- jjoonathan 9y ago
  Alternative hypothesis: once robotics hits a point where it's possible for an average person (or small group of people) to own the capital necessary to carve out a decent life (by modern standards), labor starts splintering away from the global economy en masse. With their foundations gone, the pyramids schemes crumble, and Capital is the one caught out.