5 ms·

I think the Google outrage is misplaced. The US government gave google the chance to save a lot of civillian lives by detecting truck bombs and evacuating civil

I think the Google outrage is misplaced. The US government gave google the chance to save a lot of civillian lives by detecting truck bombs and evacuating civilians using AI. Like who knows how well this program would have worked if Google committed to it. But now those lives are definitely not going to be saved. The surveillance videos are just going to be watched after a horrific attack and used to find the perpetrators. Which might help track down the killers, but won’t bring back the people killed in the attacks.

lawrenceyan 8y ago
Your argument is only valid if you believe that military applications of technology can be compartmentalized and limited in a way that one can always find a way to contribute to “good life saving military use cases” only. But where the contradiction lies comes from the fact that the fundamental objective of any military is ultimately in increasing its ability to wage war and defeat other existing militaries. Such an objective is necessarily orthogonal to “saving civilian lives” unless you define only a subset of humanity to be the civilian lives you wish to save treating those outside as expendable. Disregarding how illogical and frankly inhumane in my opinion it is in arbitrarily choosing to delineate people like this, even in purely pragmatic and economic terms, it makes no sense. War is a zero sum game no matter how much you can optimize it such that the least amount of lives are taken in doing so. The result of a use in military force is always ultimately the destruction of something which if not treated through other diplomatic means will escalate to larger and larger conflicts until at some point, nothing is left. Be very wary of those who tell you that the work you are doing is only to decrease casualty rates and save lives because that same reduction can and will be used to justify an increased usage of military force because of that very newly lowered rate. Instead of working to increase the effectiveness and lethality of militaries, why not choose to spend your energy on trying to find ways to make it easier and more effective to resolving conflict by other diplomatic means? If such a belief is idealistic in today’s world, perhaps it is. But I believe there exists a future where such a world is possible if we only choose to not immediately give in to the cynicism of that other belief.
- dogma1138 8y ago
  I think you need study history. Civilian casualties in current conflicts are at an all time low because of advancements in military technology and capabilities. We used to wipe whole cities, we don’t do that today. The effectiveness and lethality of a military dies directly to its ability to maintain peace, we have had the ability to blow each other up 10000 times over yet are living in the most peaceful time in history. Yes there is a bunch of crap going on that ideally should not be, but that is a matter of policy not capabilities.
  - nl 8y ago
    We used to wipe whole cities, we don’t do that today. Have you seen Aleppo?
  - reacweb 8y ago
    During the Second World War, the English air force was in a bad situation because the Germans were too effective in destroying military factories and defending their own. Churchill then decided to bomb German cities. The Germans did the same in London, which allowed the British to rebuild their aviation. That is what my history teacher, who was a student at the time of these events, told me.
    - nl 8y ago
      It's concerning that you are being taught this. The British didn't bomb Germany in any significant way until after the Battle of Britain. This wasn't some moral decision or anything - they didn't have a bomber with the range to attack Germany until the Lancaster[1] which flew in 1941. The Germans occupied France and the Netherlands which let them attack Britain much easier. The Battle of Britain (when the Germans were bombing Britain) finished in 1940[2]. It's true that the German campaign against factories (and airfields) was effective and their switch to bombing cities allowed the RAAF to survive as a fighting force. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
- 8y ago

lawrenceyan 8y ago

Your argument is only valid if you believe that military applications of technology can be compartmentalized and limited in a way that one can always find a way to contribute to “good life saving military use cases” only. But where the contradiction lies comes from the fact that the fundamental objective of any military is ultimately in increasing its ability to wage war and defeat other existing militaries. Such an objective is necessarily orthogonal to “saving civilian lives” unless you define only a subset of humanity to be the civilian lives you wish to save treating those outside as expendable. Disregarding how illogical and frankly inhumane in my opinion it is in arbitrarily choosing to delineate people like this, even in purely pragmatic and economic terms, it makes no sense. War is a zero sum game no matter how much you can optimize it such that the least amount of lives are taken in doing so. The result of a use in military force is always ultimately the destruction of something which if not treated through other diplomatic means will escalate to larger and larger conflicts until at some point, nothing is left. Be very wary of those who tell you that the work you are doing is only to decrease casualty rates and save lives because that same reduction can and will be used to justify an increased usage of military force because of that very newly lowered rate. Instead of working to increase the effectiveness and lethality of militaries, why not choose to spend your energy on trying to find ways to make it easier and more effective to resolving conflict by other diplomatic means? If such a belief is idealistic in today’s world, perhaps it is. But I believe there exists a future where such a world is possible if we only choose to not immediately give in to the cynicism of that other belief.

dogma1138 8y ago
I think you need study history. Civilian casualties in current conflicts are at an all time low because of advancements in military technology and capabilities. We used to wipe whole cities, we don’t do that today. The effectiveness and lethality of a military dies directly to its ability to maintain peace, we have had the ability to blow each other up 10000 times over yet are living in the most peaceful time in history. Yes there is a bunch of crap going on that ideally should not be, but that is a matter of policy not capabilities.
- nl 8y ago
  We used to wipe whole cities, we don’t do that today. Have you seen Aleppo?
- reacweb 8y ago
  During the Second World War, the English air force was in a bad situation because the Germans were too effective in destroying military factories and defending their own. Churchill then decided to bomb German cities. The Germans did the same in London, which allowed the British to rebuild their aviation. That is what my history teacher, who was a student at the time of these events, told me.
  - nl 8y ago
    It's concerning that you are being taught this. The British didn't bomb Germany in any significant way until after the Battle of Britain. This wasn't some moral decision or anything - they didn't have a bomber with the range to attack Germany until the Lancaster[1] which flew in 1941. The Germans occupied France and the Netherlands which let them attack Britain much easier. The Battle of Britain (when the Germans were bombing Britain) finished in 1940[2]. It's true that the German campaign against factories (and airfields) was effective and their switch to bombing cities allowed the RAAF to survive as a fighting force. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avro_Lancaster [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain
8y ago