3 ms·
> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy. I think it's a step in completely opposing direction. If you're in the battlefield, you don't have any pos
by golergka 6y ago
> One more sad step towards de-humanizing the enemy.
I think it's a step in completely opposing direction. If you're in the battlefield, you don't have any possible room to error on the side of mercy, because that kind of error will get you killed.
But when you move to Las Vegas, see your family every day, get enough sleep and don't risk even a light injury, that's exactly the kind of environment where you can allow yourself not to be so trigger-happy.
- kumarvvr 6y agoThis logic is absurd on the face of it. Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. In fact, with killer robots conducting wars, dont be surprised if the video feed is edited by an AI in real time, to blur out blood and gore, justbecause 'we want to protect our boys from PTSD'. Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war, without stopping the war.
- golergka 6y ago> Being in a safe environment will never let you empathize with those who you kill. And being shot by them, or expecting to get shot by them will? > Remote control allows for escaping the horrors of war That's exactly my point. Horrors of war are exactly what makes people shoot first and think second. I think that the core reason people are opposed to this is because it just feels unfair. It is. The side of war that has the drones is much stronger than the opposition. But historically, mercy has always been the business of those who're so strong that they're sure in their victory and don't feel threatened. People who are afraid and desperate are inevitably much more cruel.
- owyn 6y agoThis is basically the plot of Ender's Game and empathy with the enemy was also a big plot point...