4 ms·

Well you mentioned framing, but you aren't even a little worried that the US military continues to kill thousands of people by drone strike with total impunity

by titzer 7y ago

Well you mentioned framing, but you aren't even a little worried that the US military continues to kill thousands of people by drone strike with total impunity across several undeclared war zones? This isn't a theoretical. This is going on now. This technology will be used to kill people with absolutely zero accountability. Maybe we should strive for a planet where extra-judicial killings are hyper-efficient isn't where we invest our best minds and our money. I reject the framing where we have to accept this.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
Given that they're killing people, with zero accountability, would you prefer technology to help them do so more accurately, or not? Would you prefer less civilians as collateral damage, or more? Yes, I know, you'd prefer that they stop killing people. To do that, you have to either 1) persuade a large number of people to stop trying to kill Americans, 2) persuade America to get out of the Middle East and just let things happen over there however they're going to happen, or 3) persuade the powers that be that, even if we stay in the Middle East, killing people that want to kill us is not the most effective route to peace. And those are fine goals. But until you achieve one of those three, it isn't amiss that, when we're trying to kill someone, we do the best we can to actually kill one of the people that's trying to kill some of us, and not some random other person.
- jacobush 7y ago
  It used to be hard to kill someone. You'd need a sniper team, or a strike force. You'd take out your target and anyone putting up a fight, including collateral damage. You'd run the risk your team would get killed. Today, you don't run those risks. The stakes are low. More people can be killed with less fuss, and little political fallout at home.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    Fair point. There's Somebody's Law (I forget whose) that adding lanes to roads increases travel time, because traffic increases more than enough to compensate for the new lanes. This may have a similar effect - decreasing the per-kill collateral damage (or at least media attention) may result in even more killing.
    - ithkuil 7y ago
      Perhaps "Jevons paradox" was the name on the tip of your tongue?
      - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
        No, but it's related. The one I was thinking of was specifically related to roads and highway traffic. But, for what I was trying to say on this topic, Jevon's paradox works, too.
        ithkuil 7y ago
        Braess' paradox is specific to roads, although IMHO it's caused by a different mechanics and IIRC only applies when a route is completely removed (or utterly crippled to achieve the same effect)
- SahAssar 7y ago
  You're assuming that more data leads to better decisions. That only holds true if the data is analyzed correctly and one views it without much bias, and considering incomplete data previously was used to justify killings then I'm not sure more data will help. I'd also posit that expanding the US surveillance capabilities now to better the current situation might also lead to a worse future if we manage to fix the underlying problems you numbered.
- titzer 7y ago
  While I respect your opinion, it presents a false choice because you implicitly accept this reality. Technology enables these extrajudicial killings and further developing and deploying more technology legitimizes its use. Drone strikes have expanded at the pace technology has made them feasible, though the threats have not. The dilemma they present you with is perfectly designed for engineer minds (like me and you) who love to solve problems, increase efficiency, and feel moral about it. In short, it's a trap to get us talking about the wrong things, stuck in details. This is the gradient that pushes us towards dystopia. They feed us fear and lies, take preemptive steps, and we get stuck arguing technicalities, legalities, and tuning up the war machine. So, in short, I fully reject this framing and urge you to do the same.
dumbfoundded 7y ago
I agree with you in condemning the indiscriminate killing done by the US. Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. If you look at the developments to the hellfire missile: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-know-about-americas-sword-blade-hellfire-missile-and-its-latest-target https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-kn... . You can see that it's now more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage. The problem with the technology is that the more automated it gets, the more tempting and easy it is to use this technology liberally and frequently. I'm not against the inherent development of the technology. Only its application.
- jacquesm 7y ago
  > Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. Technology is enabling these operations.
  - dumbfoundded 7y ago
    Can technology be a tool of deescalation and an increase in precision? Do drone strikes prevent carpet bombing? I honestly don't know. We are in one of the most relatively peaceful times. The technology I worry about most is the hypersonic missiles.
    - jacobush 7y ago
      Nuclear tipped anything stealth is worrying. The Shvkal [0] torpedo also comes to mind. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval

by titzer 7y ago

AnimalMuppet 7y ago

Given that they're killing people, with zero accountability, would you prefer technology to help them do so more accurately, or not? Would you prefer less civilians as collateral damage, or more? Yes, I know, you'd prefer that they stop killing people. To do that, you have to either 1) persuade a large number of people to stop trying to kill Americans, 2) persuade America to get out of the Middle East and just let things happen over there however they're going to happen, or 3) persuade the powers that be that, even if we stay in the Middle East, killing people that want to kill us is not the most effective route to peace. And those are fine goals. But until you achieve one of those three, it isn't amiss that, when we're trying to kill someone, we do the best we can to actually kill one of the people that's trying to kill some of us, and not some random other person.

jacobush 7y ago
It used to be hard to kill someone. You'd need a sniper team, or a strike force. You'd take out your target and anyone putting up a fight, including collateral damage. You'd run the risk your team would get killed. Today, you don't run those risks. The stakes are low. More people can be killed with less fuss, and little political fallout at home.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  Fair point. There's Somebody's Law (I forget whose) that adding lanes to roads increases travel time, because traffic increases more than enough to compensate for the new lanes. This may have a similar effect - decreasing the per-kill collateral damage (or at least media attention) may result in even more killing.
  - ithkuil 7y ago
    Perhaps "Jevons paradox" was the name on the tip of your tongue?
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      No, but it's related. The one I was thinking of was specifically related to roads and highway traffic. But, for what I was trying to say on this topic, Jevon's paradox works, too.
      - ithkuil 7y ago
        Braess' paradox is specific to roads, although IMHO it's caused by a different mechanics and IIRC only applies when a route is completely removed (or utterly crippled to achieve the same effect)
SahAssar 7y ago
You're assuming that more data leads to better decisions. That only holds true if the data is analyzed correctly and one views it without much bias, and considering incomplete data previously was used to justify killings then I'm not sure more data will help. I'd also posit that expanding the US surveillance capabilities now to better the current situation might also lead to a worse future if we manage to fix the underlying problems you numbered.
titzer 7y ago
While I respect your opinion, it presents a false choice because you implicitly accept this reality. Technology enables these extrajudicial killings and further developing and deploying more technology legitimizes its use. Drone strikes have expanded at the pace technology has made them feasible, though the threats have not. The dilemma they present you with is perfectly designed for engineer minds (like me and you) who love to solve problems, increase efficiency, and feel moral about it. In short, it's a trap to get us talking about the wrong things, stuck in details. This is the gradient that pushes us towards dystopia. They feed us fear and lies, take preemptive steps, and we get stuck arguing technicalities, legalities, and tuning up the war machine. So, in short, I fully reject this framing and urge you to do the same.

dumbfoundded 7y ago

I agree with you in condemning the indiscriminate killing done by the US. Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. If you look at the developments to the hellfire missile: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-know-about-americas-sword-blade-hellfire-missile-and-its-latest-target https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/31409/everything-we-kn... . You can see that it's now more accurate and less likely to cause collateral damage. The problem with the technology is that the more automated it gets, the more tempting and easy it is to use this technology liberally and frequently. I'm not against the inherent development of the technology. Only its application.

jacquesm 7y ago
> Technology may make existing operations slightly less evil. Technology is enabling these operations.
- dumbfoundded 7y ago
  Can technology be a tool of deescalation and an increase in precision? Do drone strikes prevent carpet bombing? I honestly don't know. We are in one of the most relatively peaceful times. The technology I worry about most is the hypersonic missiles.
  - jacobush 7y ago
    Nuclear tipped anything stealth is worrying. The Shvkal [0] torpedo also comes to mind. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA-111_Shkval