3 ms·

Yes. And look what happens when a more powerful group of humans (Conquistadors) meets a slightly less powerful group of humans (Aztecs). Now imagine the more p

Yes. And look what happens when a more powerful group of humans (Conquistadors) meets a slightly less powerful group of humans (Aztecs). Now imagine the more powerful group is made of steel, have brains that run at gigahertz frequencies, and can copy themselves into available hardware.

weavejester 15y ago
Using force to seize resources from other cultures is certainly a common theme throughout history, but this is quickly becoming an anachronism. Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy, as they were in 16th century, and modern warfare tends to involve huge costs with relatively little economic advantage. Secondly, machines can reach resources that are difficult for us air-breathing fragile apes to get to. Why compete over resources on Earth when there are other places in the solar system (and in the galaxy) with more raw materials and more energy?
- RainFlutter 15y ago
  "Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy" It's fashionable to talk about information- and service-based economies, but that's not evolving beyond raw resources; it's merely taking them for granted. We consume ridiculous amounts of raw resources. Just look at what happens every time the price of oil rises.
  - weavejester 15y ago
    We still need raw materials, but the value of raw materials only makes up a small fraction of the total value of a modern economy. In the past, raw materials were the majority of the economy, and this meant they were worth fighting over. Nowadays raw materials worth very little compared to things like having good infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc.
    - RainFlutter 15y ago
      I don't know how you reconcile your opinion with our obvious and painful dependency on oil and all the conflict that results. Do you really think that matters "very little"? Where do you think the good infrastructure comes from? Yes, education and infrastructure determine the heights an economy can reach, but without raw materials you have no economy. That's why it's worth fighting over.
      - weavejester 15y ago
        I didn't say raw material don't matter; just that they're a small part of any developed economy. Usually raw materials only make up around 5% GDP for developed nations. Modern warfare is hugely expensive, and it will result in huge damage to that country's infrastructure and workforce. So you'll wind up crippling 95% of their economy in order to steal a small proportion of the remaining 5%. It's unlikely you'll even break even. It's far more profitable to trade. No infrastructure is destroyed, and you get a feedback loop of wealth creation.
- mannicken 15y ago
  Oh, right, let's talk about oil and US being in Iraq for a second. How is that not a seizure of resources with force? Pardon me, Iraq is too far for a typical HN-visitor, let's talk about various police enforcements stealing drugs from sick people and throwing those people in jail. How is that not a seizure of resources with force?
  - weavejester 15y ago
    Oh, right, let's talk about oil and US being in Iraq for a second. How is that not a seizure of resources with force? I didn't say seizing resources was an anachronism, I said it was becoming one. The Iraq war is actually a good example of this. In the past, the purpose of such a war might have been to seize the Iraqi oil fields, but if that was the end goal of the current invasion, the US is surely the most inept plunderer in history. The war has cost the US almost $800 billion, with no signs that its going to make a cent of profit any time soon. Certain unscrupulous individuals may end up profiting from the oil reserves of Iraq, but resource seizure is a niche market. It's no longer the main reason armies march.

weavejester 15y ago

Using force to seize resources from other cultures is certainly a common theme throughout history, but this is quickly becoming an anachronism. Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy, as they were in 16th century, and modern warfare tends to involve huge costs with relatively little economic advantage. Secondly, machines can reach resources that are difficult for us air-breathing fragile apes to get to. Why compete over resources on Earth when there are other places in the solar system (and in the galaxy) with more raw materials and more energy?

RainFlutter 15y ago
"Raw resources are no longer the main basis for our economy" It's fashionable to talk about information- and service-based economies, but that's not evolving beyond raw resources; it's merely taking them for granted. We consume ridiculous amounts of raw resources. Just look at what happens every time the price of oil rises.
- weavejester 15y ago
  We still need raw materials, but the value of raw materials only makes up a small fraction of the total value of a modern economy. In the past, raw materials were the majority of the economy, and this meant they were worth fighting over. Nowadays raw materials worth very little compared to things like having good infrastructure, an educated workforce, etc.
  - RainFlutter 15y ago
    I don't know how you reconcile your opinion with our obvious and painful dependency on oil and all the conflict that results. Do you really think that matters "very little"? Where do you think the good infrastructure comes from? Yes, education and infrastructure determine the heights an economy can reach, but without raw materials you have no economy. That's why it's worth fighting over.
    - weavejester 15y ago
      I didn't say raw material don't matter; just that they're a small part of any developed economy. Usually raw materials only make up around 5% GDP for developed nations. Modern warfare is hugely expensive, and it will result in huge damage to that country's infrastructure and workforce. So you'll wind up crippling 95% of their economy in order to steal a small proportion of the remaining 5%. It's unlikely you'll even break even. It's far more profitable to trade. No infrastructure is destroyed, and you get a feedback loop of wealth creation.
mannicken 15y ago
Oh, right, let's talk about oil and US being in Iraq for a second. How is that not a seizure of resources with force? Pardon me, Iraq is too far for a typical HN-visitor, let's talk about various police enforcements stealing drugs from sick people and throwing those people in jail. How is that not a seizure of resources with force?
- weavejester 15y ago
  Oh, right, let's talk about oil and US being in Iraq for a second. How is that not a seizure of resources with force? I didn't say seizing resources was an anachronism, I said it was becoming one. The Iraq war is actually a good example of this. In the past, the purpose of such a war might have been to seize the Iraqi oil fields, but if that was the end goal of the current invasion, the US is surely the most inept plunderer in history. The war has cost the US almost $800 billion, with no signs that its going to make a cent of profit any time soon. Certain unscrupulous individuals may end up profiting from the oil reserves of Iraq, but resource seizure is a niche market. It's no longer the main reason armies march.