4 ms·

I'm also for non-violence and am against militarization, but, sadly, violence and military conflict are inevitably not going to go away starting from 2020 onwar

I'm also for non-violence and am against militarization, but, sadly, violence and military conflict are inevitably not going to go away starting from 2020 onward. [Insert rant about coordination problems / game theory / tragedy of the commons / Moloch] means the US needs to be there to counter other nations that are going to try to militarize it. In an ideal world, such a military force would only act defensively, not offensively or imperially (e.g. colonizing planets, moons, and rocks purely in the name of the United States), but I guess that's not too likely in the long-term. When cyberwarfare started to become a real possibility and not just sci-fi, would you have argued that the US creating cyberwarfare divisions is wrong and shouldn't be done, even as just about every other major country was doing the same? If you were president of the US right now, what would you do if you vetoed a space force and then a few months later, Russia and China simultaneously announced the creation of their own space forces? Given the current state of the world, I believe adding additional military capabilities is just necessary, even though I'm also an idealist who detests violence, war, and death of all kinds, targeted at any being. If we lived in the year 2520 and all militaries have been disbanded for centuries and every country has been living in peace with one another for the same length of time, then, yes, I'd agree that breaking that precedent with the creation of a space force would be wrong. But unfortunately, we're not there yet, and it's possible we may not be even in 1,000 or 10,000 or 100,000 years from now. (Yes, I know there's a chicken-and-egg logic there, but I can only refer back to the implied coordination problem rant.)

pmoriarty 7y ago
There are actions we can take that lead to escalation or deescalation. The US used to lead, at least in some ways, towards a more peaceful world. Together with the Soviet Union, the US got rid of thousands of nuclear weapons. Now we are headed back in the other direction. The US still leads, but it's leading towards more conflict. Over and over again you see countries following the US as it, for example, starts to justify assassinations, wars, and torture in the name of fighting terrorism. The US unilaterally withdraws from nuclear non-proliferation agreements and nuclear proliferation heats up. As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Just today it was announced that the US is reversing course on a ban against use of land mines. A major nuclear conflict is likely to result in hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths. We have to pull back from the brink rather than always edging closer and closer to it, and this won't be achieved through more militarization.. especially not in a more multi-polar world where the US is daily losing more and more of its technological edge. Achieving a non-violent world isn't going to happen overnight, and it likely won't happen without setbacks, but the US could take the lead and steer towards peace instead of towards war.
- meowface 7y ago
  >As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Yes, but you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it. The land mines, I agree with. The nuclear situation is a little more complicated, since some believe nuclear MAD has actually (so far...) saved far more lives in total than if it weren't there, but I agree cutting back is probably a good idea. I think these things are different from having a military presence in space. I think it's like creating an air or cyber force. It's a vacuum that's inevitably going to be filled with a host of entities, so you might as well be first.
  - pmoriarty 7y ago
    "you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it." This argument would be more convincing if Russia was the first to escalate, but they weren't. Yet again the US took the lead. Even if Russia had been the first to escalate, the US could respond in all sorts of non-military ways before resorting to a military solution. This also ties back in to many other aggressive actions the US has taken, arguably since WW2. If it didn't keep squandering its political and moral capital, it would be much more persuasive to the world at large in leading the way to peace. Instead, its self-serving aggression is resulting in ever more polarization, paranoia, and enemy-making. It would be bad enough if the US was simply digging its own grave, but it seems to be intent on digging a grave for everyone. This is truly madness, and I don't see it ending in anything but a global fireball, especially if everyone keeps insisting on throwing more gasoline on the fire.
    - meowface 7y ago
      I would bet a large percentage of my savings that a country other than the US would've created such a military force within the next 20 years if the US hadn't (probably the next 10). Creating a military presence in a new domain doesn't necessarily imply any sort of aggression. It can be a buffer, an incentive not to attack America, etc. The world isn't currently in a state of peace and harmony, or anywhere near it. If it were, then I'd agree that this would be a disgusting and peace-threatening precedent set by America. But this is not the world we live in, even though I hope it will be the world at some point within the next few millennia. To be clear, I'm not supporting or defending any other actions taken by the US since WWII. I empathize with the citizens of countries that our government has abused, exploited, and killed. I just see nothing wrong with creating a space force. If we have an air force, why shouldn't we have an above-air force? If your argument were "we shouldn't have an air force or an above-air force", then I'd be much more inclined to agree (though with caveats, given all the game theory coordination stuff I alluded to). If we're going to have a military, why would you half-ass it? I think you should either have nothing but a token military like Switzerland, or one that tries to be capable of engaging in combat in every domain. Having a "just mostly pretty sort of capable" military doesn't make any sense. Shit or get off the pot. Again, I'd love it if everyone in the world only had a token military, or no military. Actual peace-threatening, provocative actions are things like cancelling the Iran deal, assassinating Soleimani, invading Iraq, Bay of Pigs; the list goes on for pages. I don't see the parallel between those and this. Now, if the government had announced our space force is going to colonize half of Mars in the name of the US, then I'd fully agree with you. That's a thing that could happen, and I certainly don't want it to. Trying to establish a true, fair one world government might be the only way to create lasting peace, but, again, sadly I don't think that'll be possible in our world for a very long time.
consumer451 7y ago
I am trying to take a wider view, from the point of view of an external observer unencumbered with politics and defence export industries. I know the tactical specifics seem impossible and I am not exactly optimistic. I have a feeling that total non-violence is unlikely to happen in time for us, because it will need a very high degree of ubiquity to address my main concern. On the positive side, we are already on the path of less and less violence as a species. Our new cyborg connection to the news may not make it feel that way, but it’s true, isn't it? [0] My main concern involves two major factors at play in our history. On the one hand, we have been becoming generally more peaceful. On the other hand the ability to commit asymmetrical violence is becoming greater as technology advances. My nightmare scenario is that we will advance tech to where something like CRISPR-cas9 will become taught at a level of high school bio class. The equipment needed will also become more common and cheaper. So if we achieve the ability for one or two smart people to create an efficient bio-WMD, prior to violence disappearing from our minds as an option, then we are going to have a bad time as a civilization and maybe even as a species. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur... edit: attempt at rephrasing
- meowface 7y ago
  I also regularly think about such doomsday scenarios, and agree it's sadly likely that at some point (probably not in our lifetimes, but maybe it will be...), it will become practical for a single intelligent, resourceful individual to kill millions of people, or more. I made another comment about this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042022 I unfortunately think it'll likely successfully occur at least once, and I think there will be other attempts from copycats (like people who idolize the Columbine shooters), Aum Shinrikyo-style death cults, terrorist organizations, and perhaps unintentionally from nation-states who greatly underestimate the capability of the deadly technology they're using. Maybe even intentionally from nation-states, if their government becomes hijacked by a terrorist group or death cult. I think such people will poke at every possible dimension: nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, nano-bots like that Black Mirror killer bee episode, seeding some sort of thing into the atmosphere to destroy it... there are going to be some people who will genuinely dedicate their lives to trying to end all known intelligent life, and there is a horrifying chance some/one of them might fully succeed; perhaps a small group or a lone wolf. It will be a vanishingly minuscule percentage of the population who would ever consider something so abhorrent, but of course it only takes one. If you traveled from the future back to today and handed an easy-to-use WMD to one of the mass shooters we keep hearing about on the news, a good percentage of them would probably deploy it with little hesitation. If the Las Vegas shooter invested so much effort to be able to massacre hundreds of strangers, and you handed him an easy way to massacre millions, he'd probably be overjoyed at all of the work you just saved him. This is a horrifying image of humanity's future. I think this is probably a greater risk than some sort of WWIII, though that's definitely also a risk. Unfortunately, I see no reasonable solution to this other than most countries' citizens collectively accepting an all-encompassing Big Brother-style surveillance state. Even then, it still might all be for naught, since it obviously can't catch absolutely everything. But maybe it's the only way to give humanity a fighting chance (at least hypothetically until there's some way to achieve near-perfect immortality, even in response to a super-WMD, maybe by scattering the galaxy with quadrillions of pieces of technology that somehow allow most consciousnesses to retain their existences, or something crazy like that? who knows - such a thing probably couldn't exist even in 50,000 years). "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.", yes. But what if you must give up essential liberty in order to have any safety at all? I think this is a terrible and wrong argument in 2020, and probably also in 2080, and maybe also in 2120. But in 2320? 2620? We also don't know how AI or perhaps AGI may play a role in all of this. This sort of absurdly asymmetric destruction may be possible long before AGI is created, or perhaps only long after it. AI or AGI could be a great aid both to the people trying to prevent this and the people trying to perpetrate it. Maybe an AI not that much more sophisticated than the ones we have today could have an impact.

pmoriarty 7y ago

There are actions we can take that lead to escalation or deescalation. The US used to lead, at least in some ways, towards a more peaceful world. Together with the Soviet Union, the US got rid of thousands of nuclear weapons. Now we are headed back in the other direction. The US still leads, but it's leading towards more conflict. Over and over again you see countries following the US as it, for example, starts to justify assassinations, wars, and torture in the name of fighting terrorism. The US unilaterally withdraws from nuclear non-proliferation agreements and nuclear proliferation heats up. As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Just today it was announced that the US is reversing course on a ban against use of land mines. A major nuclear conflict is likely to result in hundreds of millions if not billions of deaths. We have to pull back from the brink rather than always edging closer and closer to it, and this won't be achieved through more militarization.. especially not in a more multi-polar world where the US is daily losing more and more of its technological edge. Achieving a non-violent world isn't going to happen overnight, and it likely won't happen without setbacks, but the US could take the lead and steer towards peace instead of towards war.

meowface 7y ago
>As you yourself point out, the US starts militarizing space and other nations follow suit. Yes, but you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it. The land mines, I agree with. The nuclear situation is a little more complicated, since some believe nuclear MAD has actually (so far...) saved far more lives in total than if it weren't there, but I agree cutting back is probably a good idea. I think these things are different from having a military presence in space. I think it's like creating an air or cyber force. It's a vacuum that's inevitably going to be filled with a host of entities, so you might as well be first.
- pmoriarty 7y ago
  "you can substitute "US" for almost any other country. Russia starts militarizing space: US and Britain follow suit. Someone is inevitably going to be the first one to do it." This argument would be more convincing if Russia was the first to escalate, but they weren't. Yet again the US took the lead. Even if Russia had been the first to escalate, the US could respond in all sorts of non-military ways before resorting to a military solution. This also ties back in to many other aggressive actions the US has taken, arguably since WW2. If it didn't keep squandering its political and moral capital, it would be much more persuasive to the world at large in leading the way to peace. Instead, its self-serving aggression is resulting in ever more polarization, paranoia, and enemy-making. It would be bad enough if the US was simply digging its own grave, but it seems to be intent on digging a grave for everyone. This is truly madness, and I don't see it ending in anything but a global fireball, especially if everyone keeps insisting on throwing more gasoline on the fire.
  - meowface 7y ago
    I would bet a large percentage of my savings that a country other than the US would've created such a military force within the next 20 years if the US hadn't (probably the next 10). Creating a military presence in a new domain doesn't necessarily imply any sort of aggression. It can be a buffer, an incentive not to attack America, etc. The world isn't currently in a state of peace and harmony, or anywhere near it. If it were, then I'd agree that this would be a disgusting and peace-threatening precedent set by America. But this is not the world we live in, even though I hope it will be the world at some point within the next few millennia. To be clear, I'm not supporting or defending any other actions taken by the US since WWII. I empathize with the citizens of countries that our government has abused, exploited, and killed. I just see nothing wrong with creating a space force. If we have an air force, why shouldn't we have an above-air force? If your argument were "we shouldn't have an air force or an above-air force", then I'd be much more inclined to agree (though with caveats, given all the game theory coordination stuff I alluded to). If we're going to have a military, why would you half-ass it? I think you should either have nothing but a token military like Switzerland, or one that tries to be capable of engaging in combat in every domain. Having a "just mostly pretty sort of capable" military doesn't make any sense. Shit or get off the pot. Again, I'd love it if everyone in the world only had a token military, or no military. Actual peace-threatening, provocative actions are things like cancelling the Iran deal, assassinating Soleimani, invading Iraq, Bay of Pigs; the list goes on for pages. I don't see the parallel between those and this. Now, if the government had announced our space force is going to colonize half of Mars in the name of the US, then I'd fully agree with you. That's a thing that could happen, and I certainly don't want it to. Trying to establish a true, fair one world government might be the only way to create lasting peace, but, again, sadly I don't think that'll be possible in our world for a very long time.

consumer451 7y ago

I am trying to take a wider view, from the point of view of an external observer unencumbered with politics and defence export industries. I know the tactical specifics seem impossible and I am not exactly optimistic. I have a feeling that total non-violence is unlikely to happen in time for us, because it will need a very high degree of ubiquity to address my main concern. On the positive side, we are already on the path of less and less violence as a species. Our new cyborg connection to the news may not make it feel that way, but it’s true, isn't it? [0] My main concern involves two major factors at play in our history. On the one hand, we have been becoming generally more peaceful. On the other hand the ability to commit asymmetrical violence is becoming greater as technology advances. My nightmare scenario is that we will advance tech to where something like CRISPR-cas9 will become taught at a level of high school bio class. The equipment needed will also become more common and cheaper. So if we achieve the ability for one or two smart people to create an efficient bio-WMD, prior to violence disappearing from our minds as an option, then we are going to have a bad time as a civilization and maybe even as a species. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Natur... edit: attempt at rephrasing

meowface 7y ago
I also regularly think about such doomsday scenarios, and agree it's sadly likely that at some point (probably not in our lifetimes, but maybe it will be...), it will become practical for a single intelligent, resourceful individual to kill millions of people, or more. I made another comment about this a few months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21042022 I unfortunately think it'll likely successfully occur at least once, and I think there will be other attempts from copycats (like people who idolize the Columbine shooters), Aum Shinrikyo-style death cults, terrorist organizations, and perhaps unintentionally from nation-states who greatly underestimate the capability of the deadly technology they're using. Maybe even intentionally from nation-states, if their government becomes hijacked by a terrorist group or death cult. I think such people will poke at every possible dimension: nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, nano-bots like that Black Mirror killer bee episode, seeding some sort of thing into the atmosphere to destroy it... there are going to be some people who will genuinely dedicate their lives to trying to end all known intelligent life, and there is a horrifying chance some/one of them might fully succeed; perhaps a small group or a lone wolf. It will be a vanishingly minuscule percentage of the population who would ever consider something so abhorrent, but of course it only takes one. If you traveled from the future back to today and handed an easy-to-use WMD to one of the mass shooters we keep hearing about on the news, a good percentage of them would probably deploy it with little hesitation. If the Las Vegas shooter invested so much effort to be able to massacre hundreds of strangers, and you handed him an easy way to massacre millions, he'd probably be overjoyed at all of the work you just saved him. This is a horrifying image of humanity's future. I think this is probably a greater risk than some sort of WWIII, though that's definitely also a risk. Unfortunately, I see no reasonable solution to this other than most countries' citizens collectively accepting an all-encompassing Big Brother-style surveillance state. Even then, it still might all be for naught, since it obviously can't catch absolutely everything. But maybe it's the only way to give humanity a fighting chance (at least hypothetically until there's some way to achieve near-perfect immortality, even in response to a super-WMD, maybe by scattering the galaxy with quadrillions of pieces of technology that somehow allow most consciousnesses to retain their existences, or something crazy like that? who knows - such a thing probably couldn't exist even in 50,000 years). "Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.", yes. But what if you must give up essential liberty in order to have any safety at all? I think this is a terrible and wrong argument in 2020, and probably also in 2080, and maybe also in 2120. But in 2320? 2620? We also don't know how AI or perhaps AGI may play a role in all of this. This sort of absurdly asymmetric destruction may be possible long before AGI is created, or perhaps only long after it. AI or AGI could be a great aid both to the people trying to prevent this and the people trying to perpetrate it. Maybe an AI not that much more sophisticated than the ones we have today could have an impact.