4 ms·

The leadership's motivations are neither here nor there to my argument. My point is that you shouldn't waste time making arguments from final consequences witho

The leadership's motivations are neither here nor there to my argument. My point is that you shouldn't waste time making arguments from final consequences without any empirical methods. There are many tasks which are beyond reason. Predicting the future is among them. I feel like this should be obvious but I'll give an example because I feel like my point isn't coming across. During the time between WWI and WWII, governments around the world were contemplating the use of the aircraft in warfare. Particularly the consequences of aerial bombing. Some people opposed it because it was dishonorable to kill from the air. Some people doubted its effectiveness, especially after the way WWI entrenchments withstood massive artillery bombardments. And some people made exactly the argument in this article. That the bomber would save lives because it would shorten wars. By 1945, dozens of cities had been flattened by aerial bombing and hundreds of thousands of civilians had perished from it. What people got wrong was that they reasoned about aerial bombing in the context of past conflict. The notion of "justifiable" ubiquitous total war mostly was not anticipated. Essentially, they were reasoning in a world of past conflict and had not anticipated a conflict that would shift the window of what is moral or even logical. Now, who was right? Clearly those insisting on bombing as a humane measure were wrong. But at the same time, if England, France and the US had divested themselves of aerial bombing on moral grounds, Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan would've had a major advantage that might've tipped the war in their favor. I personally think I'm probably happier in the world we have rather than living "The Man in the High Castle". So who was right? It's my contention that no one was right. There's no reason to believe that a sizable portion of any group considering the issue could anticipate what happened in WWII. It's my contention, that reason alone is not enough to predict the specific future consequences of our daily actions. I'm not just rebuking this writing but nearly any writing of its kind.

candiodari 8y ago
I love how you use WW2 as an argument. Let me ask you, in your example. Suppose on the British side those people would have won, and Britain would not have had air power. We could ask the same question on the other side, and while it's not so easy to see without a good knowledge of history and the animosity and threats Germany faced between WW1 and WW2, but if Germany had refused to create air power it would have been bombed into the ground, it's people destroyed. So if one side had refused to create air power ... what would have happened ? Because we both know the answer here. What's more difficult to see is what would have happened if everyone (magically) refused to create it. But that would have enabled random other parties to quickly become a major threat, which would have had equally devastating consequences. The problem you have is that the logic is strongly on the side of creating more powerful weapons. A fair study of the cold war will reveal: the main reason we did not have WW3 is ... nuclear weapons. Einstein prevented it.

candiodari 8y ago

I love how you use WW2 as an argument. Let me ask you, in your example. Suppose on the British side those people would have won, and Britain would not have had air power. We could ask the same question on the other side, and while it's not so easy to see without a good knowledge of history and the animosity and threats Germany faced between WW1 and WW2, but if Germany had refused to create air power it would have been bombed into the ground, it's people destroyed. So if one side had refused to create air power ... what would have happened ? Because we both know the answer here. What's more difficult to see is what would have happened if everyone (magically) refused to create it. But that would have enabled random other parties to quickly become a major threat, which would have had equally devastating consequences. The problem you have is that the logic is strongly on the side of creating more powerful weapons. A fair study of the cold war will reveal: the main reason we did not have WW3 is ... nuclear weapons. Einstein prevented it.