6 ms·

I get what you're saying, it does seem wasteful, but sadly pacifists are no match for tyrants. It is admirable to want to be left alone in-peace, but as long as

I get what you're saying, it does seem wasteful, but sadly pacifists are no match for tyrants. It is admirable to want to be left alone in-peace, but as long as there are other human beings willing to use force, it cannot be. The less a society puts towards its war-fighting capabilities the more likely it is to be conquered by some adversary. It is also probably the case that our brainpower didn't invent warfare, and that this phenomenon isn't unique to us: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

adhesive_wombat 4y ago
Right, I know it's clearly not even close to possible, it's a game theory inevitability. I mean, even biological evolution is basically an arms race. We're doing well to just be where we are in terms of cooperation at all after all these millennia. But could you imagine if we could spend all those trillions on something good (enabled by the other guys doing the same). I know, impossible. But still, imagine.
- random-human 4y ago
  It would break the Matrix
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    I seem to recall that being a goal of the good guys! Though, before we do it, let's take a moment to consider most people do not look good at all in leather trenchcoats.
- jonnybgood 4y ago
  Many groups of people have different definitions of what’s good. Because there are finite resources these groups will fight over them to support what they think is good. Now you’re back to square one. I cannot imagine because you haven’t said anything different than history and the current state of the world. Trillions are being spent on what a people think is good for them. But you don’t think it’s good what the trillions are being spent on. And so it goes.
- dumpsterlid 4y ago
  Biological evolution is sort of an arms race? Wolves as a species aren't trying to eat every single deer and deer as a species aren't trying to never be eaten by a wolves (of course species don't "try", it is just a convenient manner of speaking). It is more like a balance where wolves eat the unhealthy/old deer and moderate deer population is the ideal for both species. Calling evolution an arms race massively misses the essential nature in most predator-prey relationships.
  - adhesive_wombat 4y ago
    Wolves have adapted to be good at deer killing: sharp teeth, front-facing stereo vision, pack behaviour, etc. Deer have adapted to be good at not being eaten by wolves: large eyes, peripheral vision, skittish temperament, herd behaviour, etc. Wolves would eat every deer if they could. They don't not because they think it's a bad idea, but because either they can't because the deer are good at not being eaten, or when they get too close to that goal, they run out of deer and starve into a smaller population that lets the deer recover. Any creature that "wins" the "arms race" against its prey either finds new prey or goes extinct. And species that loses the arms race better hope their predators have no other prey and starve to extinction before they all get eaten, or go extinct themselves. The only reason there's a predator-prey balance at all is a kind of survivor bias: anything not in balance is already filtered out. Not all balanced relationships are predator-prey. Viruses aren't really predators as such, but they still evolve to a balance against immune systems. If they get too good, they burn out their host populations and go extinct (SARS, say, though there have surely been countless natural examples over history). If they don't adapt in time to better immune systems, again, curtains. You could say smallpox as an example, though the last step in the arms race was an Outside Context Problem[1] from the virus's perspective. Similarly, any overly-large step in weaponry can be just as deadly as not enough: working Star Wars missile defense could easily have resulted in the end of the world, as would not keeping up with the Soviets. That shaky balance is partly deliberate, and, if you're into the anthropic principle, partly also survivorship bias. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Pr...
jessaustin 4y ago
Humans in neolithic communities occasionally have "wars" like chimpanzees have, but they don't last long and don't waste nearly so many resources as modern militaries waste. Basically they are isolated crime sprees. USA has been at war for over twenty years now, spending trillions of dollars, killing millions of people, and we have accomplished absolutely nothing that benefits the average American. It would be fabulous if we could be more like chimps than we have been recently, but of course we have the potential to be much better than chimps. Actually most humans are much better than chimps. It is we Americans (and Russians, and Ethiopians, and whoever else is currently fighting wars voluntarily) who should be better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

adhesive_wombat 4y ago

Right, I know it's clearly not even close to possible, it's a game theory inevitability. I mean, even biological evolution is basically an arms race. We're doing well to just be where we are in terms of cooperation at all after all these millennia. But could you imagine if we could spend all those trillions on something good (enabled by the other guys doing the same). I know, impossible. But still, imagine.

random-human 4y ago
It would break the Matrix
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  I seem to recall that being a goal of the good guys! Though, before we do it, let's take a moment to consider most people do not look good at all in leather trenchcoats.
jonnybgood 4y ago
Many groups of people have different definitions of what’s good. Because there are finite resources these groups will fight over them to support what they think is good. Now you’re back to square one. I cannot imagine because you haven’t said anything different than history and the current state of the world. Trillions are being spent on what a people think is good for them. But you don’t think it’s good what the trillions are being spent on. And so it goes.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
Biological evolution is sort of an arms race? Wolves as a species aren't trying to eat every single deer and deer as a species aren't trying to never be eaten by a wolves (of course species don't "try", it is just a convenient manner of speaking). It is more like a balance where wolves eat the unhealthy/old deer and moderate deer population is the ideal for both species. Calling evolution an arms race massively misses the essential nature in most predator-prey relationships.
- adhesive_wombat 4y ago
  Wolves have adapted to be good at deer killing: sharp teeth, front-facing stereo vision, pack behaviour, etc. Deer have adapted to be good at not being eaten by wolves: large eyes, peripheral vision, skittish temperament, herd behaviour, etc. Wolves would eat every deer if they could. They don't not because they think it's a bad idea, but because either they can't because the deer are good at not being eaten, or when they get too close to that goal, they run out of deer and starve into a smaller population that lets the deer recover. Any creature that "wins" the "arms race" against its prey either finds new prey or goes extinct. And species that loses the arms race better hope their predators have no other prey and starve to extinction before they all get eaten, or go extinct themselves. The only reason there's a predator-prey balance at all is a kind of survivor bias: anything not in balance is already filtered out. Not all balanced relationships are predator-prey. Viruses aren't really predators as such, but they still evolve to a balance against immune systems. If they get too good, they burn out their host populations and go extinct (SARS, say, though there have surely been countless natural examples over history). If they don't adapt in time to better immune systems, again, curtains. You could say smallpox as an example, though the last step in the arms race was an Outside Context Problem[1] from the virus's perspective. Similarly, any overly-large step in weaponry can be just as deadly as not enough: working Star Wars missile defense could easily have resulted in the end of the world, as would not keeping up with the Soviets. That shaky balance is partly deliberate, and, if you're into the anthropic principle, partly also survivorship bias. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excession#Outside_Context_Pr...

jessaustin 4y ago

Humans in neolithic communities occasionally have "wars" like chimpanzees have, but they don't last long and don't waste nearly so many resources as modern militaries waste. Basically they are isolated crime sprees. USA has been at war for over twenty years now, spending trillions of dollars, killing millions of people, and we have accomplished absolutely nothing that benefits the average American. It would be fabulous if we could be more like chimps than we have been recently, but of course we have the potential to be much better than chimps. Actually most humans are much better than chimps. It is we Americans (and Russians, and Ethiopians, and whoever else is currently fighting wars voluntarily) who should be better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy