6 ms·
Do we really want to test a theory that we can have a repeat of the 1930s when the democracies fell far behind an autocratic regime in the arms race, and again
by sseth 9y ago
Do we really want to test a theory that we can have a repeat of the 1930s when the democracies fell far behind an autocratic regime in the arms race, and again the autocratic regimes will not win? Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late.
The military-industrial complex may have become far bigger and perhaps in some ways a burden, but the world is a dangerous place and becoming more so. In my view, there is a perfectly valid argument that working with the military is the right thing to do.
At the same time if individuals have pacifist leanings and do not want to work for the military, i would hope corporations respect that.
- Darthy 9y ago> Democracies are in retreat around the world Nope. Not even in the slightest. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waves_of_democracy.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Waves_of_democracy.png https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Waves_of_democracy_in_the_20th_century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_democracy#Waves_of_...
- sseth 9y agoThe graph you are linking to ends in 1998, when Bill Clinton was in power, the US was the sole superpower, the EU was increasing in size, China's GDP was a tenth of what it is now, and i think Boris Yeltsin was running Russia, and most people had not heard of Osama bin laden. I think it is safe to say the world is different now. Look at the backsliding in Turkey, Phillipines, Burma, Venezuela, Egypt. Look at the regimes which have come to power in Hungary, Poland. And of course Russia itself. China, which at one time seemed to be heading for more moderation has taken a sharply authoritarian turn. I would argue just in the last five years things have turned sharply for the worse.
- jpollock 9y agoIn 2016, the count of >= 8 was 70. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polity_data_series
- machiaweliczny 9y ago> regimes which have come to power in Hungary, Poland. There's no regime in Poland.
- Darthy 9y agoWe can all look at the data. The graph I linked ends in 2003 (like indicated in the graph itself), and jpollock posted the value for 2016, which is 70, so even higher than 2003. In other words, you are telling incorrect things and when called out, instead of giving in to reality, you are doubling down telling even more incorrect things. Not good. And it's quite saddening that in this forum dedicated to rational discourse, your flawed reasoning is being rewarded with so much attention, currently sitting at fifth place among all root comments.
- sseth 9y agoSorry for being out of the loop - it was night time in India, and i had gone to sleep. You are right that the title says 2003 - i looked at the scale below which ended at 1998. I was not so much doubling down, but rather talking of a slightly different point that the ones you and jpollock were making. When I said democracies were in retreat, there are two or three different phenomena. First - the western democracies seem to be internally weaker, and unable to arrive at consensus even for important national priorities. This may be because of the rise of social media echo chambers. In Europe there is a growth of right-wing parties in all countries, even Germany. As an Indian this worries me, because for all their warts, the liberal democracies of US and the European countries are the model of governance I would like to have succeed across the world. Second - there seems to be no answer to the salami-slicing tactics of the autocratic regimes in Africa and Asia. You have to see the bullying of countries like Mauritius, Sri Lanka, Phillipines, even Vietnam and wonder. As the western democracies look to be in retreat, countries are surrendering their interests to the regional bullies. This will ultimately hurt all democracies in the long run. Thirdly - there is the increasingly blatant and surprisingly successful interference in open societies from the closed ones. The US election is only the most advertised one. But similar interference has happened in Australia, in UK, in various part of Europe. There are at last signs of response to this - Australia has passed a law against foreign interference, and the Skripal episode has led to (some) concerted effort. But the response still seems much weaker than the provocation. In summary, by "retreat of democracies" my focus was on their will and ability to stand up to autocratic forces, not a retreat of democracy itself (which i think is what jpollock and your responses were about). That may be why we were talking at cross purposes. I fervently wish i am wrong - and I hope i never try to avoid rational discourse.
- titzer 9y ago> Democracies are in retreat around the world, and I only hope we wake up before it is too late. What are you advocating? Arming governments with autonomous killer drones in order to "protect democracy"? Because the world is a "dangerous place"? I don't even...
- sseth 9y agoWell "governments" already have nuclear bombs, aircraft carriers, drones and what have you. It's not some new concept. You can take it as given that regimes you will never want to live under will be putting their best people in using AI for military purposes. It's dangerous to imagine one is sitting on some moral high ground by refusing to work for the military. We all owe our freedom to previous generations of scientists and engineers who worked for the military, sometimes inspite of strong ethical concerns.
- stale2002 9y agoIf we already have nukes, why would we need anything else? Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation. The only use for the other types of weapons is to participate in some other civil war in another country that we shouldn't be in. So no, I don't care if we "fall behind" because we still have nukes and those are enough to protect us in the conflicts that matter.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> Nukes prevent any war from happening between any powerful nation. So, in the universe you are writing from, the Kargil War would have been an impossibility?
- wilsonnb 9y agoIndia and Pakistan aren't really powerful nations in the nuclear sense that the US and Russia are. I assume the person you are replying means powerful nation as "nation with a lot of nukes", which is pretty much only the US and Russia. US Nukes: 7300 Russia Nukes: 8000 India Nukes: 90-100 Pakistan nukes: 100-120 Everyone except the US and Russia nukes: ~1100 (source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/nine-nations-have-nuclear-weapons-here-is-how-many-each-country-has-a6827916.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/nine-nations-have-n...)
- cosmobot 9y ago"the world is a dangerous place and becoming more so." Are you basing this statement on a general feeling or on a specific data-based metric? The military industrial complex greatly benefits from this common sentiment, but by most all quantitative measurements the world continues growing slowly safer, average lifespans increase, etc. While years-long aberrations exist (e.g. civil wars), the overall trend is very clearly antithetical to your statement.
- DontGiveTwoFlux 9y agoThere’s a balance to strike between the fear monger if news cycle and the Steven Pinker-esque wave of progress. As Pinker notes, progress is not monotonicly increasing. While it is true that things have gotten better on average across the world, we should be wary of those who do not champion enlightenment ideals, particularly in autocratic China with the apparently life term of Xi Jinpeng. We should be wary that those without our interests at heart don’t overtake us.
- MikkoFinell 9y agoThe world is currently the least dangerous it's ever been in history, and all data and all trends point that it will be even less dangerous in the future. Sorry but you're simply wrong.
- weirdstuff 9y agoNot sure about that. Wasn't the Doomsday Clock just moved back to an all-time dangerous spot?
- DontGiveTwoFlux 9y agoThe doomsday clock is a human institution of scientists, though hardly scientific. They see it as their duty to raise alarms. But ask yourself- are we really closer to civilization ending Doomsday than at the height of the Cold War?
- thesagan 9y agoI don't see why not. Seems nuclear weapons and war are still a thing. So much so they moved the hands of the Doomsday clock again to these heights.
- lifeformed 9y agoDifferent metrics. I think you're referring to crime rates and health, but OP is referring to political instability.
- MikkoFinell 9y agoI'm referring to all data, including political stability. You're less likely to find yourself in a war than ever before. The source of my claims is the book by Steven Pinker: The Better Angels of Our Nature.
- Gatsky 9y agoThe problem with this argument is that Pinker could have written the same book in 1930.
- hyder_m29 9y agoDemocracies are in retreat because of corruption and failings of its leaders, people are losing faith in the democratic process. Not because their militaries aren't powerful enough.
- deciplex 9y agoIt's not clear to me that America is not on the path that Germany was headed down in the early 30s.
- Gatsky 9y agoThis is sadly correct. Pacifism isn't viable when some of the biggest countries in the world are run by totalitarian regimes. Objections to participating in the military industrial complex are a luxury of countries verging on global irrelevance. The proclivities of the West to engage in self-flagellation over these issues are well known to and exploited by less liberal regimes. If only it were not so, but I don't know what the alternative is, just as the physicists in the Manhattan project saw no alternative.