12 ms·

I'm more optimistic. WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them. These days such a strategy is a complete non-starter

by PaulAJ 7y ago

I'm more optimistic. WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them. These days such a strategy is a complete non-starter because no developed nation can withstand an invasion. Think of it like this: Silicon Valley is probably one of the richest bits of America. So imagine that some dictator decides to invade it, and that the US military try to stop him but fail in some improbable way. So this dictator now controls a bunch of ruins with no electricity containing broken computers. His troops are herding the geeks who used to program those computers into internment camps. How does this make him any richer than he was before? If you conquer a third-world country then you can exploit its raw resources: a semi-literate population, farmland on which they can grow food, and maybe minerals they can dig out of the ground. That was essentially the thinking behind the Heartland Theory (see link). But it just won't work any more. These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-heartland-theory.html https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/what-is-the-heartland-th...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
brbrodude 7y ago
IMO wealth & power comes as much from brains as it does from nature/ground/territory, same as it ever was. One is dependent on the other. Also, wars are absolutely ingrained in how USA became the richest country in the world, undeniably, and lot only back then in WW2. Also this: `A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars. This view, broadly analogous to the modern factoid that there has never been a war between two countries with a MacDonald’s outlet, became so well established that, less than a year before the Great War broke out, the Economist reassured its readers with an editorial titled “War Becomes Impossible in Civilized World.”` http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...
- joefourier 7y ago
  Was he so wrong in stating that war between the great powers would be economically and socially irrational? WW1 certainly did not lead to long-term prosperity for the victors, and the attempted conquests of WW2 had disastrous consequences. Both conflicts largely ended the era of European supremacy.
  - brbrodude 7y ago
    I side with Taleb on the matter, the problem is that economists and economic arguments do not model reality nearly as much as they want it to, it gives an illusion of wisdom because the simple model seems coherent, it fails, they refuse to accept it, but still they enjoy trust and influence even though being wrong, catastrophically wrong, multiple times, and they remain at it, it's a kind of modern astrology, modern sophistry, etc(specially if you link that an illusion of knowledge will stand in front of a real one). Then everybody pays for it. In my mind the class of the economist is of the dark priest. Btw it was economically rational for Germany to want to get strong expansionist & 'warry' since the Versailles Agreement probably meant they'd be made into a 3rd world or colonized country forever wouldn't they act upon it(there's a theory ww1 & 2 were actually the same ww). At the beginning of it too, if I'm not mistaken, their first aggressive actions were done on hoping to be able to keep the war localized as much as possible, that other countries would not want to pay the economic cost of chiming in(think Russia-Crimeia?), they didn't set out to start a World War, it just spun out of control. So obviously the categorization you made of "european supremacy" is void, since in the context it was irrelevant, they just saw themselves independently and seeking their own rational, economic, social, interests.
FigBug 7y ago
I think another thing is that governments have lost a lot of their power and are now somewhat controlled by corporations. This is usually assumed to be a bad thing, but most corporations don't like war, it's bad for business. It disrupts supply chains, kills customers, and generally makes things unstable. (Except for military contractors, but they seem to do well if there is a war or not). I think climate change could bring another big war, because then wealth will become food and water, and that can be taken by force.
- adminu 7y ago
  That's certainly not entirely true. Dick Cheney got himself and some colleagues from affiliated businesses quite wealthy during Iraq [1]. After all, the US military ate 600b$ in 2018; tax payers' money that in large parts went into private businesses. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-chene... EDIT: ok, I oversaw the last part of your comment, but still, military businesses need the occasional war to be legit, I am afraid.
AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Hmm. I wonder if Putin believes the Heartland Theory? It would explain why he's so against the nations of eastern Europe joining NATO.
- geoka9 7y ago
  I think Putin's MO is making people in Russia complacent with the kleptocratic regime he heads - be it through relative economic stability/growth, or, lacking that, the pride that their country is feared by the rest of the world. Still, you can only rely on the latter so much, so you want to be able to sell natural gas and oil without European/American sanctions getting in the way. Keeping Europe politically divided would sink any chance of serious sanctions put in place against Russia. Keeping it from forming a military alliance would ensure that he can launch "hybrid warfare" at will without triggering a major military response. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Putin's popularity soared. But just two years before that, there were major protests in the streets of Moscow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Russian_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Russian_protes...
coliveira 7y ago
> These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. You should rethink your assumptions. Yes, a lot of the new wealth is created by technology, but ask any oil company if they would give up their oil fields, or to mining companies, agro companies, etc. In the US the biggest example is the Koch family that made a fortune by controlling land and natural resources -- the same theme repeating itself over undeveloped countries.
- jbob2000 7y ago
  You can't run any major resource operation without smart people. Unless you want to do it with shovels, you need smart people to set up the machinery and keep it running. You need trade agreements so you can actually get that machinery shipped in.
  - adminu 7y ago
    If history has shown anything, then that smart people wont refuse to work under such a system. There is always someone who is willing to do the job and more importantly, as soon as the system is established, rewards for good work will drive the gross of smart people to work. After all they have to feed their families, too.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - PavlovsCat 7y ago
    > You can't run any major resource operation without smart people. Given "perfect automation", owning the means of production will be all, there will be no labor aspect to it. That's gonna be a whole lot of wealth and power in very few hands, and the few specialists needed to built and operate the machines may very well get be forced at gunpoint (i.e. threat of perfected, indefinitely prolongable torture of people they are close to and/or themselves) to do their work, and they will never know how many other specialists elsewhere recreate the same work they do to make sure they are not doing anything funny. If I can think of that in the time it took me to write this, absolutely water-proof solutions can be found, too. With enough in the balance, nothing is too cruel or too invasive. edit: Who knows, "not smart" people might end up as pets in some kind of zoo, their harmless spontaneity a source of enjoyment for the owners; while the super smart people might end up completely scrutinized and controlled, being both a source of danger and power. Go further, and assume they will be bred for harmlessness and utility, whereas the remaining pet humans will at least be bred for harmlessness and beauty.
NotSammyHagar 7y ago
China would conquer the developed country Taiwan in a second if Taiwan wasnt heavily armed and didn't have significant "allies" like the us. It would not be doing it to take over their wealth of course, it would be to cement their power.
- KeAShizuku 7y ago
  China considers Taiwan a breakaway province (historically true one must admit) so it would be more like a civil war. They wouldn't call it conquest since its already Chinese. It would certainly make for a diplomatic conundrum. Almost nobody recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation.
  - cscurmudgeon 7y ago
    In a civil war only one side has a conventional army, usually.
shusson 7y ago
> WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them What about Russia invading Ukraine?
- KineticLensman 7y ago
  And Iraq and Kuwait?
- SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
  How is that about capturing wealth? It's about preventing the spread of NATO to Russia's doorstep.
  - boomboomsubban 7y ago
    It's about keeping Russian control of a Black Sea port, which can be considered "capturing wealth." NATO was already at Russia's doorstep without Russia invading.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  That's not about capturing wealth but about capturing geopolitical goals e.g. Black Sea control, pressure on international political organizations and such. All the contested regions - Crimea, Donetsk/Lugansk "national republics", Abkhazia and South Ossetia are actually a very good illustration of this concept. From the perspective of economic benefit, even ignoring the wider effects from sanctions and such, the captured (or, in some cases, captured-and-mostly-abandoned) regions have been and still are a net drain on Russian economy - they consume wealth of the mainland rather contribute back to it; you might or might not give these regions dotations to (re-)develop them so that they might be productive after a decade or two, but the results of these "adventures" clearly show that in the short term it's not reasonable to capture wealth of developed (or even not that developed; Ukraine as such and those parts especially are on the low end compared to most developed countries) countries by invasion because you don't really capture that wealth in an invasion, you generally just destroy it. There probably are important benefits that Russian leadership is gaining (or expected to gain) out of these regions, but wealth capture isn't one of these benefits.
imtringued 7y ago
Wars never really went away. It's just that we managed increase our productivity enough that the old limited resources no longer constrained us. Farmland is only a limited resource if you are not using artificial fertilizer. The land no longer needs to remain fallow after harvest, you can just plant again. Because we can now turn energy into food, wars are now centered around energy instead. Russia annexes Crimea, USA goes to war with Iran.
- iguy 7y ago
  Another way to say that is that farming is 1% of GDP in America now -- so the traditional war aim of capturing lots of farmland with peasants to tax is laughable. Industry is down to 20%; in WWII capturing centers of heavy industry was a big deal, but again this seems dated. Maybe energy's importance isn't quite captured by such figures, it's a concentrated tap of money which is easy for rulers to control. The US is no longer a net importer, but IIRC it's still Russia's main export.
- grawprog 7y ago
  >Farmland is only a limited resource if you are not using artificial fertilizer. Until the supply of phosphorous mass agriculture relies on for fertilizer runs out. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/phosphorus.html http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/p... Or as more and more arable land is lost to erosion https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degra...
- fkdo 7y ago
  In this argument fusion energy would eliminate the need for wars, because all countries to safely generate huge amounts of energy, enough for desalination even.
  - carapace 7y ago
    Fusion energy would eliminate the need for wars.
ggg2 7y ago
you mean, excluding actual capturof wealth after ww ii, like Crimea? Or soft ones like belt and road taking over Africa's infrastructure or the fight to keep Venezuela under US control?
klipt 7y ago
> These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. At least not until we have general AI. If machine brain power starts exceeding human brain power, then be very afraid of who holds the reigns.
- tomxor 7y ago
  > If machine brain power starts exceeding human brain power That is so ambiguous... ML abilities are far far from a one dimensional measure, in many ways it has already far exceeded mans mental abilities, and in many ways it has not and has little promise to do so in even the distant future. Machine learning is great at automating basic things e.g a subset of image recognition or extremely narrow and specific things e.g playing Go, because these problems are well defined and can be engineered at one level and emergent at another. It's not good at being conscious, because that is a chasm so deep and wide and non-specific in content that it is not a topology that can be so easily engineered with intent. When most people talk about conscious AI they mean AI that imitates human without realizing it - conscious AI is not some inevitable progression from our current toys, it's as if we are playing with the beginnings of chemistry and assume an entire highly sophisticated biological organism is going to be the next step.</rant>
  - visarga 7y ago
    I think we're just reinforcement learning agents. It's not such a chasm between current RL and human level. On the other hand we're also self replicators and have been shaped by evolution. Robots (physically embodied AI) are still far from that.
    - tomxor 7y ago
      > On the other hand we're also self replicators and have been shaped by evolution Yes which shaped our brain topology, ML is completely absent of that currently, we do it manually.
apo 7y ago
Worth considering: > In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[3] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[4] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[5] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion
- fallingfrog 7y ago
  I mean, he wasn’t wrong to argue that war was irrational, he was wrong in assuming that the leadership of the time was rational..
- Hypx 7y ago
  While he was proven wrong, his point was correct: WWI and WWII were economically disastrous to everyone involved except for the US. And in that case only because the US suffered no major damage to its infrastructure. There's no way rational actors would start a war on the size of WWII. Only human insanity can cause another one. While that's no guarantee, it is still a strong preventative factor.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    And maybe a few of those economically disastrous wars are needed to empirically reinforce that theory. I imagine that the future may look back at this era and marvel at how the US lost its world leading position through idiotic wars, while China bumbled its way to world leadership simply by not having any.
    - Smithalicious 7y ago
      It's a disservice to China to say that they "bumbled their way into it"
krapp 7y ago
>These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. Operation Paperclip, North Korea and Los Zetas would disagree. It's actually easier to capture that wealth with a gun, because that wealth is attached to someone who cares about their life and the lives of their loved ones. You can't blackmail a mine or a wheat field.
crimsonalucard 7y ago
Wealth nowadays is not rare resources but information crystalized as products and knowledge not easily transferred to other places. A computer is made out of worthless silicon but it is not the silicon that gives the computer value, it is simply the way that silicon is configured and the knowledge on how to reproduce such a configuration. War nowadays cannot transfer such wealth across national boundaries. We live in the information age, but it is not just about the internet. Information is about low entropy configurations of what is otherwise cheap materials into these things called technology. If china wanted Americas technology how would they retrieve it? Not war, but through espionage. The cold war beginning with Russia has largely replaced actual physical battle.
bordercases 7y ago
That's why modern warfare pushes out to non-physical theaters. Low-intensity but perpetual mind, marketing and financial games.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
DanHulton 7y ago
I think you're half-right, but we're entering an unprecedented age where global climate change really mixes up the desirability of certain geographical features. I strongly suspect this is why a lot of immigration phobias are being whipped up (mass climate migrants will mix things up IMMENSELY), and where at least some of the next large wars will come from. Lakes and rivers will dry out, floodplains will flood, and previous choice living locations will become some of the worst around. Stress this enough, and war can indeed break out.
mercurysmessage 7y ago
Mining, and oil are still two very massive industries. The developing world suffers due to the greed of the "West".
johnny313 7y ago
WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them. The Gulf War [0] seems like a much more recent (1990-91) example of this - Iraq invaded Kuwait, taking control of their oil fields and deep water ports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
- dingaling 7y ago
  The Iraqi invasion was itself a reaction to Kuwaiti slant-drilling, a nonmilitary attempt to capture wealth.
  - Something1234 7y ago
    Do you have a source to support your claims?
    - cheerlessbog 7y ago
      https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-th...
      - mieseratte 7y ago
        > Some Iraqi officials have accused Kuwait in the past of using advanced drilling techniques developed by Amer ican oilfield specialists to siphon oil from the Rumaila field, a charge that American drillers deny, noting that the oil flows easily from the Rumaila field without any need for these techniques. I’m not sure if I trust a genocidal tyrant or an oil company. Perhaps it’s a bit much to claim Kuwait was asking for it.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  It rather illustrates the reasons for this rule - Kuwait economy is/was quite different from pretty much all developed countries in that it was so predominantly based on oil fields that this invasion made sense. The largest oil producer in the world currently is USA, and still the USA oil fields are just a tiny fraction of its wealth production. You could capture half of Kuwait's wealth if you got control over its extractive economy. You can't capture half of EU or USA wealth if you get control over all their natural resources, not even close to that.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
api 7y ago
This assumes rational actors.
cheerlessbog 7y ago
The only military threat today to the US homeland is an accidental nuclear launch. That concern is real even in peacetime because of the inherent conflict of interest in the design of the delivery systems. They must reliably launch in minutes without the possibility of recall, yet also have literally zero possibility of doing so unintentionally. How much of that chain of events is under the control of (potentially faulty) software, and highly stressed people acting on limited information with minutes to act and trained to not question the order? We've successfully deterred intentional strike by all but the most deranged adversary by creating a machine capable of accidentally causing tragedy of historic proportions.
lkrubner 7y ago
I've read that the USA Civil War cost more than it would have cost to buy all slaves at normal market prices and then set them free. So the war was not about economics. It was about something much more primal. Which is probably true of most wars. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a war that was fought for purely rational reasons.
joyjoyjoy 7y ago
"I'm more optimistic." I am not. "WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them." There were many reasons. I was not aware that "wealth" was one of them. For very advanced but small countries with a small population it may have made sense as a last grab to try to stay a super power. "These days such a strategy is a complete non-starter because no developed nation can withstand an invasion." I dont understand this statement. "Think of it like this: Silicon Valley is probably one of the richest bits of America. So imagine that some dictator decides to invade it, and that the US military try to stop him but fail in some improbable way." Silicon valley is rich because of knowledge, no because they have stored gold in the vaults or oil under the soil. ALso: "The threshold necessary for small groups to conduct global warfare has finally been breached, and we are only starting to feel its effects. Over time, in as little as perhaps twenty years and as the leverage of technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination -- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win." Brave new War, john robb "So this dictator now controls a bunch of ruins with no electricity containing broken computers." This won't be a dictator but a nerd in this parents basement doing DoS or running a CRISPER Lab from his garage. "How does this make him any richer than he was before?" I doubt that "money" was the driving force beyond most wars in the last century. Power. Fame. Ideology. But money? The 3rd world war will make the last two look like Disney land trips.
noir_lord 7y ago
Hmm, interesting idea. War been generally bad for the economy might not be enough if it benefits the parts that have the ear of government, yet another reason why lobbying is a bad idea.
nradov 7y ago
Future conflicts between major powers are more likely to be fought over maritime trade routes and offshore oil fields.

by PaulAJ 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

brbrodude 7y ago

IMO wealth & power comes as much from brains as it does from nature/ground/territory, same as it ever was. One is dependent on the other. Also, wars are absolutely ingrained in how USA became the richest country in the world, undeniably, and lot only back then in WW2. Also this: `A 1910 best-selling book, The Great Illusion, used economic arguments to demonstrate that territorial conquest had become unprofitable, and therefore global capitalism had removed the risk of major wars. This view, broadly analogous to the modern factoid that there has never been a war between two countries with a MacDonald’s outlet, became so well established that, less than a year before the Great War broke out, the Economist reassured its readers with an editorial titled “War Becomes Impossible in Civilized World.”` http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-war-one-first-war-was-impossible-then-inevitable/ http://blogs.reuters.com/anatole-kaletsky/2014/06/27/world-w...

joefourier 7y ago
Was he so wrong in stating that war between the great powers would be economically and socially irrational? WW1 certainly did not lead to long-term prosperity for the victors, and the attempted conquests of WW2 had disastrous consequences. Both conflicts largely ended the era of European supremacy.
- brbrodude 7y ago
  I side with Taleb on the matter, the problem is that economists and economic arguments do not model reality nearly as much as they want it to, it gives an illusion of wisdom because the simple model seems coherent, it fails, they refuse to accept it, but still they enjoy trust and influence even though being wrong, catastrophically wrong, multiple times, and they remain at it, it's a kind of modern astrology, modern sophistry, etc(specially if you link that an illusion of knowledge will stand in front of a real one). Then everybody pays for it. In my mind the class of the economist is of the dark priest. Btw it was economically rational for Germany to want to get strong expansionist & 'warry' since the Versailles Agreement probably meant they'd be made into a 3rd world or colonized country forever wouldn't they act upon it(there's a theory ww1 & 2 were actually the same ww). At the beginning of it too, if I'm not mistaken, their first aggressive actions were done on hoping to be able to keep the war localized as much as possible, that other countries would not want to pay the economic cost of chiming in(think Russia-Crimeia?), they didn't set out to start a World War, it just spun out of control. So obviously the categorization you made of "european supremacy" is void, since in the context it was irrelevant, they just saw themselves independently and seeking their own rational, economic, social, interests.

FigBug 7y ago

I think another thing is that governments have lost a lot of their power and are now somewhat controlled by corporations. This is usually assumed to be a bad thing, but most corporations don't like war, it's bad for business. It disrupts supply chains, kills customers, and generally makes things unstable. (Except for military contractors, but they seem to do well if there is a war or not). I think climate change could bring another big war, because then wealth will become food and water, and that can be taken by force.

adminu 7y ago
That's certainly not entirely true. Dick Cheney got himself and some colleagues from affiliated businesses quite wealthy during Iraq [1]. After all, the US military ate 600b$ in 2018; tax payers' money that in large parts went into private businesses. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-cheney-and-halliburton.html https://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/28/us/a-closer-look-at-chene... EDIT: ok, I oversaw the last part of your comment, but still, military businesses need the occasional war to be legit, I am afraid.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Hmm. I wonder if Putin believes the Heartland Theory? It would explain why he's so against the nations of eastern Europe joining NATO.

geoka9 7y ago
I think Putin's MO is making people in Russia complacent with the kleptocratic regime he heads - be it through relative economic stability/growth, or, lacking that, the pride that their country is feared by the rest of the world. Still, you can only rely on the latter so much, so you want to be able to sell natural gas and oil without European/American sanctions getting in the way. Keeping Europe politically divided would sink any chance of serious sanctions put in place against Russia. Keeping it from forming a military alliance would ensure that he can launch "hybrid warfare" at will without triggering a major military response. When Russia annexed Crimea in 2014, Putin's popularity soared. But just two years before that, there were major protests in the streets of Moscow: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Russian_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011%E2%80%9313_Russian_protes...

coliveira 7y ago

> These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. You should rethink your assumptions. Yes, a lot of the new wealth is created by technology, but ask any oil company if they would give up their oil fields, or to mining companies, agro companies, etc. In the US the biggest example is the Koch family that made a fortune by controlling land and natural resources -- the same theme repeating itself over undeveloped countries.

jbob2000 7y ago
You can't run any major resource operation without smart people. Unless you want to do it with shovels, you need smart people to set up the machinery and keep it running. You need trade agreements so you can actually get that machinery shipped in.
- adminu 7y ago
  If history has shown anything, then that smart people wont refuse to work under such a system. There is always someone who is willing to do the job and more importantly, as soon as the system is established, rewards for good work will drive the gross of smart people to work. After all they have to feed their families, too.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- PavlovsCat 7y ago
  > You can't run any major resource operation without smart people. Given "perfect automation", owning the means of production will be all, there will be no labor aspect to it. That's gonna be a whole lot of wealth and power in very few hands, and the few specialists needed to built and operate the machines may very well get be forced at gunpoint (i.e. threat of perfected, indefinitely prolongable torture of people they are close to and/or themselves) to do their work, and they will never know how many other specialists elsewhere recreate the same work they do to make sure they are not doing anything funny. If I can think of that in the time it took me to write this, absolutely water-proof solutions can be found, too. With enough in the balance, nothing is too cruel or too invasive. edit: Who knows, "not smart" people might end up as pets in some kind of zoo, their harmless spontaneity a source of enjoyment for the owners; while the super smart people might end up completely scrutinized and controlled, being both a source of danger and power. Go further, and assume they will be bred for harmlessness and utility, whereas the remaining pet humans will at least be bred for harmlessness and beauty.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

China would conquer the developed country Taiwan in a second if Taiwan wasnt heavily armed and didn't have significant "allies" like the us. It would not be doing it to take over their wealth of course, it would be to cement their power.

KeAShizuku 7y ago
China considers Taiwan a breakaway province (historically true one must admit) so it would be more like a civil war. They wouldn't call it conquest since its already Chinese. It would certainly make for a diplomatic conundrum. Almost nobody recognizes Taiwan as an independent nation.
- cscurmudgeon 7y ago
  In a civil war only one side has a conventional army, usually.

shusson 7y ago

> WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them What about Russia invading Ukraine?

KineticLensman 7y ago
And Iraq and Kuwait?
SpaceRaccoon 7y ago
How is that about capturing wealth? It's about preventing the spread of NATO to Russia's doorstep.
- boomboomsubban 7y ago
  It's about keeping Russian control of a Black Sea port, which can be considered "capturing wealth." NATO was already at Russia's doorstep without Russia invading.
PeterisP 7y ago
That's not about capturing wealth but about capturing geopolitical goals e.g. Black Sea control, pressure on international political organizations and such. All the contested regions - Crimea, Donetsk/Lugansk "national republics", Abkhazia and South Ossetia are actually a very good illustration of this concept. From the perspective of economic benefit, even ignoring the wider effects from sanctions and such, the captured (or, in some cases, captured-and-mostly-abandoned) regions have been and still are a net drain on Russian economy - they consume wealth of the mainland rather contribute back to it; you might or might not give these regions dotations to (re-)develop them so that they might be productive after a decade or two, but the results of these "adventures" clearly show that in the short term it's not reasonable to capture wealth of developed (or even not that developed; Ukraine as such and those parts especially are on the low end compared to most developed countries) countries by invasion because you don't really capture that wealth in an invasion, you generally just destroy it. There probably are important benefits that Russian leadership is gaining (or expected to gain) out of these regions, but wealth capture isn't one of these benefits.

imtringued 7y ago

Wars never really went away. It's just that we managed increase our productivity enough that the old limited resources no longer constrained us. Farmland is only a limited resource if you are not using artificial fertilizer. The land no longer needs to remain fallow after harvest, you can just plant again. Because we can now turn energy into food, wars are now centered around energy instead. Russia annexes Crimea, USA goes to war with Iran.

iguy 7y ago
Another way to say that is that farming is 1% of GDP in America now -- so the traditional war aim of capturing lots of farmland with peasants to tax is laughable. Industry is down to 20%; in WWII capturing centers of heavy industry was a big deal, but again this seems dated. Maybe energy's importance isn't quite captured by such figures, it's a concentrated tap of money which is easy for rulers to control. The US is no longer a net importer, but IIRC it's still Russia's main export.
grawprog 7y ago
>Farmland is only a limited resource if you are not using artificial fertilizer. Until the supply of phosphorous mass agriculture relies on for fertilizer runs out. http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/phosphorus.html http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/m2016/finalwebsite/solutions/p... Or as more and more arable land is lost to erosion https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degradation https://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/soil-erosion-and-degra...
fkdo 7y ago
In this argument fusion energy would eliminate the need for wars, because all countries to safely generate huge amounts of energy, enough for desalination even.
- carapace 7y ago
  Fusion energy would eliminate the need for wars.

ggg2 7y ago

you mean, excluding actual capturof wealth after ww ii, like Crimea? Or soft ones like belt and road taking over Africa's infrastructure or the fight to keep Venezuela under US control?

klipt 7y ago

> These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. At least not until we have general AI. If machine brain power starts exceeding human brain power, then be very afraid of who holds the reigns.

tomxor 7y ago
> If machine brain power starts exceeding human brain power That is so ambiguous... ML abilities are far far from a one dimensional measure, in many ways it has already far exceeded mans mental abilities, and in many ways it has not and has little promise to do so in even the distant future. Machine learning is great at automating basic things e.g a subset of image recognition or extremely narrow and specific things e.g playing Go, because these problems are well defined and can be engineered at one level and emergent at another. It's not good at being conscious, because that is a chasm so deep and wide and non-specific in content that it is not a topology that can be so easily engineered with intent. When most people talk about conscious AI they mean AI that imitates human without realizing it - conscious AI is not some inevitable progression from our current toys, it's as if we are playing with the beginnings of chemistry and assume an entire highly sophisticated biological organism is going to be the next step.</rant>
- visarga 7y ago
  I think we're just reinforcement learning agents. It's not such a chasm between current RL and human level. On the other hand we're also self replicators and have been shaped by evolution. Robots (physically embodied AI) are still far from that.
  - tomxor 7y ago
    > On the other hand we're also self replicators and have been shaped by evolution Yes which shaped our brain topology, ML is completely absent of that currently, we do it manually.

apo 7y ago

Worth considering: > In The Great Illusion, Angell's primary thesis was, in the words of historian James Joll, that "the economic cost of war was so great that no one could possibly hope to gain by starting a war the consequences of which would be so disastrous."[3] For that reason, a general European war was very unlikely to start, and if it did, it would not last long.[4] He argued that war was economically and socially irrational[5] and that war between industrial countries was futile because conquest did not pay. J. D. B. Miller writes: "The 'Great Illusion' was that nations gained by armed confrontation, militarism, war, or conquest."[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Illusion

fallingfrog 7y ago
I mean, he wasn’t wrong to argue that war was irrational, he was wrong in assuming that the leadership of the time was rational..
Hypx 7y ago
While he was proven wrong, his point was correct: WWI and WWII were economically disastrous to everyone involved except for the US. And in that case only because the US suffered no major damage to its infrastructure. There's no way rational actors would start a war on the size of WWII. Only human insanity can cause another one. While that's no guarantee, it is still a strong preventative factor.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  And maybe a few of those economically disastrous wars are needed to empirically reinforce that theory. I imagine that the future may look back at this era and marvel at how the US lost its world leading position through idiotic wars, while China bumbled its way to world leadership simply by not having any.
  - Smithalicious 7y ago
    It's a disservice to China to say that they "bumbled their way into it"

krapp 7y ago

>These days the real wealth comes from brainpower, but you can't capture that wealth by pointing a gun at someone. Operation Paperclip, North Korea and Los Zetas would disagree. It's actually easier to capture that wealth with a gun, because that wealth is attached to someone who cares about their life and the lives of their loved ones. You can't blackmail a mine or a wheat field.

crimsonalucard 7y ago

Wealth nowadays is not rare resources but information crystalized as products and knowledge not easily transferred to other places. A computer is made out of worthless silicon but it is not the silicon that gives the computer value, it is simply the way that silicon is configured and the knowledge on how to reproduce such a configuration. War nowadays cannot transfer such wealth across national boundaries. We live in the information age, but it is not just about the internet. Information is about low entropy configurations of what is otherwise cheap materials into these things called technology. If china wanted Americas technology how would they retrieve it? Not war, but through espionage. The cold war beginning with Russia has largely replaced actual physical battle.

bordercases 7y ago

That's why modern warfare pushes out to non-physical theaters. Low-intensity but perpetual mind, marketing and financial games.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

DanHulton 7y ago

I think you're half-right, but we're entering an unprecedented age where global climate change really mixes up the desirability of certain geographical features. I strongly suspect this is why a lot of immigration phobias are being whipped up (mass climate migrants will mix things up IMMENSELY), and where at least some of the next large wars will come from. Lakes and rivers will dry out, floodplains will flood, and previous choice living locations will become some of the worst around. Stress this enough, and war can indeed break out.

mercurysmessage 7y ago

Mining, and oil are still two very massive industries. The developing world suffers due to the greed of the "West".

johnny313 7y ago

WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them. The Gulf War [0] seems like a much more recent (1990-91) example of this - Iraq invaded Kuwait, taking control of their oil fields and deep water ports. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War

dingaling 7y ago
The Iraqi invasion was itself a reaction to Kuwaiti slant-drilling, a nonmilitary attempt to capture wealth.
- Something1234 7y ago
  Do you have a source to support your claims?
  - cheerlessbog 7y ago
    https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-the-gulf-the-oilfield-lying-below-the-iraq-kuwait-dispute.html https://www.nytimes.com/1990/09/03/world/confrontation-in-th...
    - mieseratte 7y ago
      > Some Iraqi officials have accused Kuwait in the past of using advanced drilling techniques developed by Amer ican oilfield specialists to siphon oil from the Rumaila field, a charge that American drillers deny, noting that the oil flows easily from the Rumaila field without any need for these techniques. I’m not sure if I trust a genocidal tyrant or an oil company. Perhaps it’s a bit much to claim Kuwait was asking for it.
PeterisP 7y ago
It rather illustrates the reasons for this rule - Kuwait economy is/was quite different from pretty much all developed countries in that it was so predominantly based on oil fields that this invasion made sense. The largest oil producer in the world currently is USA, and still the USA oil fields are just a tiny fraction of its wealth production. You could capture half of Kuwait's wealth if you got control over its extractive economy. You can't capture half of EU or USA wealth if you get control over all their natural resources, not even close to that.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

api 7y ago

This assumes rational actors.

cheerlessbog 7y ago

The only military threat today to the US homeland is an accidental nuclear launch. That concern is real even in peacetime because of the inherent conflict of interest in the design of the delivery systems. They must reliably launch in minutes without the possibility of recall, yet also have literally zero possibility of doing so unintentionally. How much of that chain of events is under the control of (potentially faulty) software, and highly stressed people acting on limited information with minutes to act and trained to not question the order? We've successfully deterred intentional strike by all but the most deranged adversary by creating a machine capable of accidentally causing tragedy of historic proportions.

lkrubner 7y ago

I've read that the USA Civil War cost more than it would have cost to buy all slaves at normal market prices and then set them free. So the war was not about economics. It was about something much more primal. Which is probably true of most wars. I think you'd have a difficult time finding a war that was fought for purely rational reasons.

joyjoyjoy 7y ago

"I'm more optimistic." I am not. "WWII was the last attempt to capture the wealth of developed nations by invading them." There were many reasons. I was not aware that "wealth" was one of them. For very advanced but small countries with a small population it may have made sense as a last grab to try to stay a super power. "These days such a strategy is a complete non-starter because no developed nation can withstand an invasion." I dont understand this statement. "Think of it like this: Silicon Valley is probably one of the richest bits of America. So imagine that some dictator decides to invade it, and that the US military try to stop him but fail in some improbable way." Silicon valley is rich because of knowledge, no because they have stored gold in the vaults or oil under the soil. ALso: "The threshold necessary for small groups to conduct global warfare has finally been breached, and we are only starting to feel its effects. Over time, in as little as perhaps twenty years and as the leverage of technology increases, this threshold will finally reach its culmination -- with the ability of one man to declare war on the world and win." Brave new War, john robb "So this dictator now controls a bunch of ruins with no electricity containing broken computers." This won't be a dictator but a nerd in this parents basement doing DoS or running a CRISPER Lab from his garage. "How does this make him any richer than he was before?" I doubt that "money" was the driving force beyond most wars in the last century. Power. Fame. Ideology. But money? The 3rd world war will make the last two look like Disney land trips.

noir_lord 7y ago

Hmm, interesting idea. War been generally bad for the economy might not be enough if it benefits the parts that have the ear of government, yet another reason why lobbying is a bad idea.

nradov 7y ago

Future conflicts between major powers are more likely to be fought over maritime trade routes and offshore oil fields.