5 ms·

OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discou

OK. So, suppose the rules for elections were to be changed. Now, you have to pay 100 bucks to cast a vote. Unless you vote republican, then you get a 50% discount. Would you agree that that is not an existential threat to the country?

Jach 9y ago
Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
  OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
  - Jach 9y ago
    Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
      OK. Is there anything that one could do with a country that you would consider an existential threat to the country, and if so, could you give an example?
      - Jach 9y ago
        Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... Some existential threats to countries: * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. * Government bankruptcy. * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) I'll stop there...
        zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... You seem to have a very unusual concept of what makes an existential threat, and I think countries is an easier analogy to try and understand your reasoning. > * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. What if the attacking country declared that its goal is to gain power over the country to exploit it economically, but let the country continue to exist (essentially colonialism)? Would you still consider that an existential threat? > * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. What if the declared goal of all parties to the war would be to keep the country intact, just with different sets of rules? Would you still consider that an existential threat? > * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) How does that threaten the country existentially? That's just about who has power in the country, not about whether the country exists, isn't it? > * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. But a country with a starving population is still a country, isn't it? And a country that had a coup is still a country, isn't it? So, why is this an existential threat to a country? > * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. But would that change that it's still a country? Why would you consider this an existential threat when the country still exists afterwards?! > * Government bankruptcy. How is that an existential threat for the country? It's just a bankrupt country then, isn't it? > * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) Wouldn't that just result in a country with a lot of ill and ultimately dead people? That doesn't make it not a country, does it? Why do you consider this an existential threat to the country, then?! > I'll stop there... Sure, I think I got the idea, but I really did not get your reasoning behind this. I don't really expect that you respond individually to each question above, that probably would be a huge waste of time ... my point is: Why would you consider any of that an existential threat to a country when the country in all cases almost certainly still exists afterwards?

Jach 9y ago

Sure. That'd probably be an improvement, even if you switched the discount. America didn't always have universal suffrage, so I can hardly see how this new requirement would be a threat.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
OK. How about we increase what you have to pay to 1 million bucks, this time without a discount? Would that be an existential threat in your opinion?
- Jach 9y ago
  Nope. Governments and countries can work just fine without democracy.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
    OK. Is there anything that one could do with a country that you would consider an existential threat to the country, and if so, could you give an example?
    - Jach 9y ago
      Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... Some existential threats to countries: * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. * Government bankruptcy. * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) I'll stop there...
      - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
        > Sure, though I'm not seeing the value in this thread when the original context was existential threats to the internet... You seem to have a very unusual concept of what makes an existential threat, and I think countries is an easier analogy to try and understand your reasoning. > * An equally or more powerful country declares war on the country. (Actually even an underdog can occasionally win, so the power criteria isn't strictly needed for a threat...) Similarly for a group of countries against another group of countries. What if the attacking country declared that its goal is to gain power over the country to exploit it economically, but let the country continue to exist (essentially colonialism)? Would you still consider that an existential threat? > * Increased tensions within a country build up to a civil war. Survivable (USA) but still a threat. What if the declared goal of all parties to the war would be to keep the country intact, just with different sets of rules? Would you still consider that an existential threat? > * The US State Department doesn't like the country's leader(s) How does that threaten the country existentially? That's just about who has power in the country, not about whether the country exists, isn't it? > * Country cannot produce as much as or more than it consumes. Side effects include mass starvation, coup attempts. But a country with a starving population is still a country, isn't it? And a country that had a coup is still a country, isn't it? So, why is this an existential threat to a country? > * Modern "acts of war" but not necessarily carried out by a war-declaring entity like another country. E.g. terrorist attacks on infrastructure. Probably worst (but least likely) threat is an EMP detonated about as high up as the ISS, if you wanted to affect a country the size of the continental US. But would that change that it's still a country? Why would you consider this an existential threat when the country still exists afterwards?! > * Government bankruptcy. How is that an existential threat for the country? It's just a bankrupt country then, isn't it? > * Mass disease (thankfully less of a threat given modern medicine and distribution) Wouldn't that just result in a country with a lot of ill and ultimately dead people? That doesn't make it not a country, does it? Why do you consider this an existential threat to the country, then?! > I'll stop there... Sure, I think I got the idea, but I really did not get your reasoning behind this. I don't really expect that you respond individually to each question above, that probably would be a huge waste of time ... my point is: Why would you consider any of that an existential threat to a country when the country in all cases almost certainly still exists afterwards?