3 ms·

Isn’t the situation in Russia right now an example of a single individual dominating millions? And all back through history from the advent of armies, isn’t it

by ekanes 4y ago

Isn’t the situation in Russia right now an example of a single individual dominating millions? And all back through history from the advent of armies, isn’t it the same thing?

atoav 4y ago
It is, but you are flipping the direction of causality here. I said: Certain technologies make it easier for the few to force the many. I did not say that certain technologies are the only way to do so. Also: this is about numbers. The vast majority of Russians are in support of their president. Now imagine it would be less, lets say 30% or 10%. Or maybe 1%? At some point a threshold is crossed at which those in power cannot sustain themselves anymore. And there are technologies that move that threshold down, because less people can control more people. Imagine e.g. how guns helped to sustain control of huge populations of colonized or enslaved people by relatively few oppressors. At this point in times guns pushed down the percentage of people needed to yield power over others. At some point more people got guns and things leveled out a bit. Because ot was something multiple parties of a conflict could eventually use. But here comes the point: you still need people to wield those guns and willing to put their lives at risk. Sure you can trick them into doing that — but if you push your luck too much they can turn on you at any moment. For a swarm of killer drones you need less people and they don't need to risk anything.
- ekanes 4y ago
  I hear you, it's a valid point. Social media, facial recognition and perhaps other techs do fascilitate that, BUT weapons we haven't really seen that. I can't think of any examples -- with guns, one could argue that Texas for example would be harder to dominate than a meeker state. I guess perhaps your point is as much that this is tech that doesn't require humans, and I agree that's a step more dangerous, because the individual morality of the soldier is absent.

by ekanes 4y ago

Isn’t the situation in Russia right now an example of a single individual dominating millions? And all back through history from the advent of armies, isn’t it the same thing?

atoav 4y ago

It is, but you are flipping the direction of causality here. I said: Certain technologies make it easier for the few to force the many. I did not say that certain technologies are the only way to do so. Also: this is about numbers. The vast majority of Russians are in support of their president. Now imagine it would be less, lets say 30% or 10%. Or maybe 1%? At some point a threshold is crossed at which those in power cannot sustain themselves anymore. And there are technologies that move that threshold down, because less people can control more people. Imagine e.g. how guns helped to sustain control of huge populations of colonized or enslaved people by relatively few oppressors. At this point in times guns pushed down the percentage of people needed to yield power over others. At some point more people got guns and things leveled out a bit. Because ot was something multiple parties of a conflict could eventually use. But here comes the point: you still need people to wield those guns and willing to put their lives at risk. Sure you can trick them into doing that — but if you push your luck too much they can turn on you at any moment. For a swarm of killer drones you need less people and they don't need to risk anything.

ekanes 4y ago
I hear you, it's a valid point. Social media, facial recognition and perhaps other techs do fascilitate that, BUT weapons we haven't really seen that. I can't think of any examples -- with guns, one could argue that Texas for example would be harder to dominate than a meeker state. I guess perhaps your point is as much that this is tech that doesn't require humans, and I agree that's a step more dangerous, because the individual morality of the soldier is absent.