3 ms·

Aside from military, this tactic became obvious to me when space became (again) a theater of conquest around 2010, involving both private and public sectors, in

Aside from military, this tactic became obvious to me when space became (again) a theater of conquest around 2010, involving both private and public sectors, internationally. The narrative around space became very strong, sending messages of conquest, entrepreneurship, science, dreams, you name it. At the exact same period, bloomed movies like: Mission to Mars, Gravity, Interstellar. I won't be surprised to see a surge of interest in space-related careers in younger generations in years to come.

matheusmoreira 5y ago
Yeah. I used to think space exploration was about pushing the whole human race forward. Now I realize it's about geopolitics. Superpowers competing for even more power. While we consume optimistic media like Star Trek, the USA is busy setting up constellations of surveillance satellites as well as a literal space force. Wikileaks is such an incredible gift to mankind. Diplomatic cables leaked there showed me that the USA explicitly interfered in my country's attempt to develop a space program because they don't want us to have rocket and therefore missile technology. They actually wanted to use my country for launches due to it being under the equator but only if they could leave us out of it entirely, no one would even be able to enter the premises.
azalemeth 5y ago
While that's true, the fundamental missions in space that we are likely to fly are basically all about science and engineering. Even (I speculate) the classified ones. Satellites provide either telecommunications or fundamental information about our world or the universe in which it sits. That information is not going to beinherently military -- it's the purposes that it is put to that may be. On the other have, every American action movie seems to feature guns and explosions and quite a lot of glorification of the military. The military exist to kill people, and to deliver the utmost brutality to others whilst remaining organised, logical and efficient themselves. Guns exist to kill things. Explosive munitions are fundamentally excellent at killing people from a surprisingly long way away, larger than what Hollywood shows. When was the last time you saw a film highlight the loss a family of a minor villain felt when the hero shot him? The true aftermath of an air strike in a foreign country -- lifelong resentment and hatred about the country that provided it? (Vietnam is an interesting place to visit, but don't mention B-52s to the locals). It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of humanity that armies are required to exist. There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology, and I'm not calling for their abolition -- I am not naïve. That is fundamentally why the glorification of the military at all costs is problematic. The ethical arguments for their existence require exploring. American films, on the other hand, will quite happily show a commando killing hundreds or thousands of people in a teenager-friendly film, yet American culture decrees that showing a single naked person mandates that the film is restricted. That mindset -- boobs bad, guns good, explosions fun and exciting -- is slowly but surely exported across the globe. I'm going to look forward to the sci-fi space films where the drama is survival in a hostile environment, and infinitely prefer them to war films.
- pferde 5y ago
  > I'm going to look forward to the sci-fi space films where the drama is survival in a hostile environment, and infinitely prefer them to war films. So, movies like The Martian? I wish I could come up with more examples, and I hope someone replying to me does...
- imiric 5y ago
  > It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of humanity that armies are required to exist. Is it really unavoidable? I'll play the naïve part here and say that the military is an extension of humanity's tribal nature. The entire concept of countries and borders is rooted in our deep desire to belong to a specific tribe, be defensive of other members of our tribe, and offensive towards other tribes that might want to do us harm. The fact we manage to communicate and exchange goods and ideas is a testament of our collaboration skills, but this "us vs. them" mentality is always present in the back of our monkey brains. If we ever manage to overcome this innate distrust—either via natural evolution (unlikely) or merging with a neutral AI (more likely?)—it would boost our capacity of working towards common goals as a species to unprecedented levels. > There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology There's no reason these efforts couldn't come from a nonmilitary organization. While competition and developing better weapons of war than other countries is a large component of technological advancement, I'd argue that global collaboration without distrust and politics would accelerate that progress even more. It would certainly help with current issues like climate change, space exploration and pandemic mitigation, while avoiding all of the pain, death and misery that wars and conflicts have brought us throughout history.
  - HPsquared 5y ago
    Game theory suggests the optimal strategy is to be either a "provokable nice guy" or a "Genghis Khan": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game

matheusmoreira 5y ago

Yeah. I used to think space exploration was about pushing the whole human race forward. Now I realize it's about geopolitics. Superpowers competing for even more power. While we consume optimistic media like Star Trek, the USA is busy setting up constellations of surveillance satellites as well as a literal space force. Wikileaks is such an incredible gift to mankind. Diplomatic cables leaked there showed me that the USA explicitly interfered in my country's attempt to develop a space program because they don't want us to have rocket and therefore missile technology. They actually wanted to use my country for launches due to it being under the equator but only if they could leave us out of it entirely, no one would even be able to enter the premises.

azalemeth 5y ago

While that's true, the fundamental missions in space that we are likely to fly are basically all about science and engineering. Even (I speculate) the classified ones. Satellites provide either telecommunications or fundamental information about our world or the universe in which it sits. That information is not going to beinherently military -- it's the purposes that it is put to that may be. On the other have, every American action movie seems to feature guns and explosions and quite a lot of glorification of the military. The military exist to kill people, and to deliver the utmost brutality to others whilst remaining organised, logical and efficient themselves. Guns exist to kill things. Explosive munitions are fundamentally excellent at killing people from a surprisingly long way away, larger than what Hollywood shows. When was the last time you saw a film highlight the loss a family of a minor villain felt when the hero shot him? The true aftermath of an air strike in a foreign country -- lifelong resentment and hatred about the country that provided it? (Vietnam is an interesting place to visit, but don't mention B-52s to the locals). It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of humanity that armies are required to exist. There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology, and I'm not calling for their abolition -- I am not naïve. That is fundamentally why the glorification of the military at all costs is problematic. The ethical arguments for their existence require exploring. American films, on the other hand, will quite happily show a commando killing hundreds or thousands of people in a teenager-friendly film, yet American culture decrees that showing a single naked person mandates that the film is restricted. That mindset -- boobs bad, guns good, explosions fun and exciting -- is slowly but surely exported across the globe. I'm going to look forward to the sci-fi space films where the drama is survival in a hostile environment, and infinitely prefer them to war films.

pferde 5y ago
> I'm going to look forward to the sci-fi space films where the drama is survival in a hostile environment, and infinitely prefer them to war films. So, movies like The Martian? I wish I could come up with more examples, and I hope someone replying to me does...
imiric 5y ago
> It is an unfortunate but unavoidable fact of humanity that armies are required to exist. Is it really unavoidable? I'll play the naïve part here and say that the military is an extension of humanity's tribal nature. The entire concept of countries and borders is rooted in our deep desire to belong to a specific tribe, be defensive of other members of our tribe, and offensive towards other tribes that might want to do us harm. The fact we manage to communicate and exchange goods and ideas is a testament of our collaboration skills, but this "us vs. them" mentality is always present in the back of our monkey brains. If we ever manage to overcome this innate distrust—either via natural evolution (unlikely) or merging with a neutral AI (more likely?)—it would boost our capacity of working towards common goals as a species to unprecedented levels. > There is definitely good that comes from them, ranging from humanitarian aid to the research into high end technology There's no reason these efforts couldn't come from a nonmilitary organization. While competition and developing better weapons of war than other countries is a large component of technological advancement, I'd argue that global collaboration without distrust and politics would accelerate that progress even more. It would certainly help with current issues like climate change, space exploration and pandemic mitigation, while avoiding all of the pain, death and misery that wars and conflicts have brought us throughout history.
- HPsquared 5y ago
  Game theory suggests the optimal strategy is to be either a "provokable nice guy" or a "Genghis Khan": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peace_war_game