4 ms·
They're a little unclear about exactly what morality they are advocating for. The nature of weapon technology transforms the way society works. In the era of s
by ufmace 6y ago
They're a little unclear about exactly what morality they are advocating for. The nature of weapon technology transforms the way society works.
In the era of sword and shield, for example, combat effectiveness is hugely dependent on raw upper body strength. That means that strong healthy men rule all domains, while women, children, any men not in top physical shape are helpless before them.
In the modern era of mechanized weapons, personal size and physical ability are much less relevant. There's a much greater ability for small groups to make their opinions felt. Victory in large battles tends to go to whoever has the best tech and greatest quantity of it. It's probably a better world overall.
The real question is, exactly how will any "killbots" work, and what effect will they have on society? Maybe they'll be super-expensive and centrally controlled, and nobody better dare to move against whoever ends up in charge of them. Maybe they'll be cheap and plentiful, so anyone with a grudge will be even more able to cause chaos. Maybe something else we can't imagine yet. I have a feeling we'll find out eventually, one way or another.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoYour second paragraph seems rather simplistic to me. Less-able men with more ability to marshall resources/rewards can convince more-able men to be their proxies by paying them . How would they have the ability to do that? Technology, knowledge, cunning, guile. How long has it been since the king was the best fighter in the realm? I mean, seriously?
- ufmace 6y agoWell yeah it's simplistic, since it's 2 sentences. I'm not really prepared or qualified to write a 30 page paper on the nature of medieval combat. Yet there seems to be an obvious truth to it. There are of course exceptions, such as persuading or paying someone else to fight for you, or concealing a weapon, getting someone to trust you, and stabbing them in the back, etc. It still seems to shape much about reality to know that the majority of people will have no chance of ever winning a remotely fair fight against the enforcers of whoever is in charge.
- PaulDavisThe1st 6y agoI don't find the "truth" you mention obvious at all. I think it's just a fairy story simplification based largely on fiction (written and visual). Over the last couple of thousand years (or more, but history gets a bit fuzzy beyond that), lots of nations have had leaders at many different times who were not the best fighters. Your claim wasn't that a majority of people had no chance of winning a fair fight against enforcers, which is obviously true. You made a much more broad claim about how historically certain physical attributes would put particular kinds of people in positions of power, and about how that has changed. I think this is likely misleading and inaccurate. Yes, those with power have always used force to enforce their wishes, but that's very different from saying that those in power are themselves of a certain physical type.