4 ms·

> there is complete consensus on not wanting a world dominated by killer robots. That and nukes. It is ok to not want these things, but to survive as a nation

by all2 5y ago

> there is complete consensus on not wanting a world dominated by killer robots. That and nukes. It is ok to not want these things, but to survive as a nation state, these things will become necessary developments in order to survive. If GP is correct about some of the capabilities we're likely to see, then any nation state without these will need to begin development in order to ensure survival. Is that an arms race waiting to happen? Yes. Is there a better way? No. The alternative to an escalating arms race is actual war. We will never be done with power hungry ideologues, we will never be done with Communists whose sole mission is dominion over the whole world, we will never be done with petty despots (looking at you, Putin) who so wish they could play a meaningful role on the world stage. All of these have every reason to develop a new super weapon to tilt the balance of power in their favor. Iran, for example, has started its centrifuges again. They also have some new ones that spin at 10x the speed of their old ones. They are very close to possessing a nuclear bomb. Up until the end of the Trump presidency they had halted production of uranium and talks were going well. Biden has about the weakest foreign policy of any president in the last half century. Part of that effective foreign policy is the military might the US has. (Why do we have 5 carrier battle groups? Why does Britain only have one? Why does Russia have a single carrier that's in rather poor repair?) If killer drones are an effective war-fighting tool (an it appears they are), they are inevitable. What we need to ensure is that they are used as humanely as possible.

jMyles 5y ago
> That and nukes. Yeah, good point. But I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this period in Earth's history. And more generally: maintenance of arsenals of weapons of mass destruction is _very_ costly. Economics of energy production and storage are perhaps a viable mechanism to add pressure in favor of disarmament. > (Why do we have 5 carrier battle groups? Why does Britain only have one? Why does Russia have a single carrier that's in rather poor repair?) We can also summarize questions of stagnant geopolitical asymmetry this way: How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Trying to shoehorn a previous world order into an information age society seems like a colossal waste of time in service of nostalgia.
- all2 5y ago
  > nostalgia. Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. > How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". "The internet", that is the masses that make it up, do what they're told, consume what they are allowed to consume, demonize those they are told they should demonize. Goebbels would be jealous of the machine the modern world has developed.
  - jMyles 5y ago
    > Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. > Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. This is _precisely_ the uncultured nostalgia I'm suggesting is unworthy of our defenses. I absolutely support your right to bear arms in your defense. To be free in your religious exercise and associations and speech and press, and in the security of your effects against intrusion. But the US is not, as you say, a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution in any broad and universal sense. We have two million people living in cages. Five million more living under supervision of a system of slavery rebranded as carceral rehabilitation. Drugs and medicines and sacraments subject to capricious regulation at best, and often outright prohibition. Fiat currency. Arms which are practical as tools of self-defense unavailable to a quarter of the population. And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. So the question is: _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Especially now? Why can't we protect each other? Engage in commerce regulated (which is to say, made regular) by the internet alone? I have no idea what the benefits are of the continued existence of the US State, but the downsides are absolutely evident and very real on a daily basis. > Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". I take your point, absolutely. But doesn't China and the Great Firewall also provide us with an example of failure of authoritarian tendencies as they apply to the internet? May 35th lives on largely as an internet meme. The official truth may dominate in circles where it can be violently maintained, but those shrink in the face of connectivity, no?
PontifexMinimus 5y ago
> It is ok to not want these things, but to survive as a nation state, these things will become necessary developments in order to survive. Yes, exactly. > If killer drones are an effective war-fighting tool (an it appears they are), they are inevitable. I have come to the same conclusion.
drekk 5y ago
I see the Cold War never ended in the US. The communists you're decrying engaged 80% of the German army and were responsible for 7/10s of Nazi deaths on that front. It wasn't the USSR that dropped two nuclear bombs (one uranium, one plutonium) on Japanese civilian targets when the Japanese were willing to surrender on the sole condition that they keep their emperor (a religious figure) In the name of "stopping the spread of communism" the US overthrew popularly-elected governments, sent death squads into Latin America, and killed millions of civilians besides the ones they permanently maimed. This is besides the typical "make their economy scream" that kills civilians as well, in a way harder to quantify. Cuba is still the victim of this decades after the failed Bay of Pigs. We have technically been in a state of emergency since the 50s with the undeclared Korean War, and for what? The permanent wartime economy hasn't benefited anyone besides the military-industrial complex. American imperial designs in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Yemen, Syria, etc. were all enabled by this escalation mentality and the crimes against humanity that were committed there are a permanent stain on humanity
- BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
  > the Japanese were willing to surrender on the sole condition that they keep their emperor Heh, that's quite the narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident

by all2 5y ago

jMyles 5y ago

> That and nukes. Yeah, good point. But I can absolutely envision - without much difficulty - a megatons-to-megawatts motion swiftly bringing an end to this period in Earth's history. And more generally: maintenance of arsenals of weapons of mass destruction is _very_ costly. Economics of energy production and storage are perhaps a viable mechanism to add pressure in favor of disarmament. > (Why do we have 5 carrier battle groups? Why does Britain only have one? Why does Russia have a single carrier that's in rather poor repair?) We can also summarize questions of stagnant geopolitical asymmetry this way: How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Trying to shoehorn a previous world order into an information age society seems like a colossal waste of time in service of nostalgia.

all2 5y ago
> nostalgia. Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. > How long will the internet abide states as nodes of economic and social standing? Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". "The internet", that is the masses that make it up, do what they're told, consume what they are allowed to consume, demonize those they are told they should demonize. Goebbels would be jealous of the machine the modern world has developed.
- jMyles 5y ago
  > Nostalgia does not guarantee me personal autonomy. Neither does it guarantee me a right to self defense. Nor does it guarantee a free practice of religion, free press, or a right of association. > Ensuring the survival of a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution will guarantee those things. This is _precisely_ the uncultured nostalgia I'm suggesting is unworthy of our defenses. I absolutely support your right to bear arms in your defense. To be free in your religious exercise and associations and speech and press, and in the security of your effects against intrusion. But the US is not, as you say, a nation state that adheres to the US Constitution in any broad and universal sense. We have two million people living in cages. Five million more living under supervision of a system of slavery rebranded as carceral rehabilitation. Drugs and medicines and sacraments subject to capricious regulation at best, and often outright prohibition. Fiat currency. Arms which are practical as tools of self-defense unavailable to a quarter of the population. And I'm not sure that anybody other than (some) white men have _ever_ had these things securely in their civic possession. So the question is: _can_ a state be the bearer of insurance for these things? Especially now? Why can't we protect each other? Engage in commerce regulated (which is to say, made regular) by the internet alone? I have no idea what the benefits are of the continued existence of the US State, but the downsides are absolutely evident and very real on a daily basis. > Take a look at China and their authoritarian take on "the internet". I take your point, absolutely. But doesn't China and the Great Firewall also provide us with an example of failure of authoritarian tendencies as they apply to the internet? May 35th lives on largely as an internet meme. The official truth may dominate in circles where it can be violently maintained, but those shrink in the face of connectivity, no?

PontifexMinimus 5y ago

> It is ok to not want these things, but to survive as a nation state, these things will become necessary developments in order to survive. Yes, exactly. > If killer drones are an effective war-fighting tool (an it appears they are), they are inevitable. I have come to the same conclusion.

drekk 5y ago

I see the Cold War never ended in the US. The communists you're decrying engaged 80% of the German army and were responsible for 7/10s of Nazi deaths on that front. It wasn't the USSR that dropped two nuclear bombs (one uranium, one plutonium) on Japanese civilian targets when the Japanese were willing to surrender on the sole condition that they keep their emperor (a religious figure) In the name of "stopping the spread of communism" the US overthrew popularly-elected governments, sent death squads into Latin America, and killed millions of civilians besides the ones they permanently maimed. This is besides the typical "make their economy scream" that kills civilians as well, in a way harder to quantify. Cuba is still the victim of this decades after the failed Bay of Pigs. We have technically been in a state of emergency since the 50s with the undeclared Korean War, and for what? The permanent wartime economy hasn't benefited anyone besides the military-industrial complex. American imperial designs in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Cuba, Yemen, Syria, etc. were all enabled by this escalation mentality and the crimes against humanity that were committed there are a permanent stain on humanity

BrazzVuvuzela 5y ago
> the Japanese were willing to surrender on the sole condition that they keep their emperor Heh, that's quite the narrative. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABj%C5%8D_incident