8 ms·

You do realise that right now on a Chinese version of hacker news, a Chinese version of you is making the same argument? The messed up aspects of this world ar

You do realise that right now on a Chinese version of hacker news, a Chinese version of you is making the same argument? The messed up aspects of this world aren't inevitable, we all take part.

archontes 4y ago
This is the tragedy of the commons. Its solution is a central authority. How do we get there?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
belval 4y ago
As they should, with 8 billions inhabitants, assuming that peace can be kept on good intentions is the pacifist fallacy. We just got a wonderful example with the invasion of Ukraine. You can be nice, you can play nice, you can apply sanctions, send strongly worded statement, and yet Ukrainians are dying and tanks are still rolling in. You know what's stopping the Russians? Javelins and Bayraktars.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  The right lesson to learn from Ukraine is that big countries are ever willing to sacrifice small countries in their bids for power. Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion. Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years. There is 0 chance Russia will back off. Of course, it will also weaken Russia, which is what Europe and the USA actually want. Putin fell right into their trap, and Ukraine thinks it's being helped.
  - lovich 4y ago
    > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion. By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Russia could take Ukraine today with no more materiel losses and they will be worse off than when they started. The only way they could consider this a win is if they consider ideological reasons, but if you include those you can’t say the Ukrainians would be better off if they value freedom more than they value staying alive
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      Russia is better off without a NATO presence at its borders, threatening regime change at the press of a button. Sure, NATO would avoid openly invading Russia, but just like we are currently fighting in Ukraine with everything except (overt) manpower, our expansion would not stop at Russia's current borders. Every separatist movement inside the Russian Federation would (will) find a good friend in NATO. Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. > By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Absolutely, and what I'm saying is not justification for this disturbing invasion. The invasion obviously puts Putin and other Russian elites' interest above those of their citizens, as can be expected from an authoritarian oligarchy.
      - CamperBob2 4y ago
        Gee. I wonder why the US and most other world powers don't have an international treaty organization exclusively dedicated to defending other countries against the possibility of aggression by them? If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. Edit due to rate-limiting: OK, I'll amend my comment. Don't invade your neighbors or commit genocide, and you don't have anything to fear from NATO. Better? As for Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO activated Article 5 because the US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan on 9/11, but my understanding is that the coalition forces that went into Iraq were not NATO-affiliated. Is that understanding incorrect?
  - chowells 4y ago
    Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. Ukraine has had its own independent culture for thousands of years. Russian propaganda doesn't erase history. Russia's ultimate goal is to erase Ukraine. What's the compromise between "you need to stop existing" and "we exist", again?
    - ejb999 4y ago
      >>Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. It worked fabulously for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? </sarc>
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      The main reason Putin attacked Ukraine is the ever growing NATO presence in Ukraine, which is an existential threat to the current Russian regime. If NATO got Ukraine, Putin would likely be the next target. And negotiation is always the winning strategy, since in war everyone loses.
      - riku_iki 4y ago
        There was no NATO in Ukraine, but now Sweden and Finland are NATO. The reason is why Ukraine is existential threat to current Russian regime is because they have democracy and personal freedom, which spreads around (Belarus, Kazahstan, etc) and challenges foundation of Putin regime.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ukraine's constitution says they will try to join NATO. NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine. Putin's puppet leader of Ukraine was ousted with US involvement. For the past 8+ years, NATO had been pouring money, weapons, training and intel into Ukraine. Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Now that the war has started, but only is NATO pouring weapons and Intel into Ukraine, they are actually providing detailed targeting data for much of Ukraine's long-range weaponry. NATO guns are being wielded by NATO-trained soldiers deployed in positions suggested by NATO tacticians based on NATO intelligence gathering. The guns are targeted by NATO computers. Ukrainians are basically only pulling the trigger, and of course taking the bullets. So saying "there was no NATO in Ukraine" is quite absurd. On the other hand, Putin has clearly misjudged this invasion, and it has already become a costly mistake from all points of view. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a major blow, in addition to the economic sanctions, while the initial failure of his all fronts invasion has surely been a major blow to the image of the Russian military. However, while this is great news for NATO, it doesn't mean that it's also great news for Ukraine, which has already sacrificed much. And personally, I believe this invasion is Russia's last stand: that will either crush Ukraine into dust (assuming Ukraine doesn't acquiesce), or they will crumble themselves. I don't think nuclear weapons are off the table for Russia if it thinks the alternative is pulling out of Ukraine with no guarantees it will abandon cooperation with NATO.
  - jwineinger 4y ago
    Appeasement has been tried before, to great loss.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion The war started immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russian puppet government. They didn't successfully resist the initial anything; Russia seized Crimea and infiltrated and set up proxies in Eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine was unable to do much about it. > Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years. The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands. > There is 0 chance Russia will back off They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II. > Putin fell right into their trap I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap. The US and other friends of Ukraine spend most of a decade openly arming and training Ukraine after the 2014 invasion, repeatedly saying Russia should stop interfering and warning, with increasing urgency, of their knowledge of and commitment to opposing Russia’s plan for a new, large scale invasion in 2022, going so far as to release detailed intelligence of the orders for that invasion that Putin has given. Pretty easy trap to avoid if you don't want to fall into it, what with everyone pointing out where it is, how bad it would be to step in it, and how to avoid it.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      > The war started immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russian puppet government. Neglecting US involvement in that revolution/coup hides a big part of the story. The US ambassador to Ukraine and Victoria Nuland were discussing who should replace Russia's puppets a full two weeks before the people actually got rid of him - which Russian spies discovered and published. > The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands. Right - I was thinking more of deaths, but you're right harm has indeed come to millions of people, from Russia's unjust war. > They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II. I honestly believe there is a high chance Russia would rather throw the dice and nuke Ukraine before allowing the war to end, unless they get down guarantees that NATO involvement in Ukraine will stop completely. What would happen next is impossible to predict, as we would be stepping into an entirely new world. > I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap. The trap was constant escalation of NATO presence in Ukraine, culminating in the joint military exercises in 2021, forcing Putin to react.
  - Zanfa 4y ago
    > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war You don’t “work with Russia”. You either surrender completely and have leadership controlled from Moscow or get labeled a nazi regime itching to invade Russia.
    - tsimionescu 4y ago
      And yet Finland, Germany, even France, China - all managed to work with Russia decently well, at least before the current desperate show of force from Putin.
      - Zanfa 4y ago
        Finland is probably the only exception to the rule and only because they managed to kick a lot of russian ass back in the day. China is significantly more powerful player than Russia. Germany and France don’t share a border with russia.
        riku_iki 4y ago
        > Germany and France don’t share a border with russia. Its more they are part of NATO, which Russia not ready to confront directly.
        tsimionescu 4y ago
        I also forgot Mongolia and Kazakhstan on the list of nations that are neither Russian puppets nor in danger of invasion. And further out, Russia has good relations with India as well (not sure about Pakistan). To be fair, there were some significant disagreements between Kazakhstan and Russia after Putin made comments about their traditional statehood, prompting several threats from their own authoritarian leader, but when Kazakh leadership felt threatened by protesters, they appealed to Russia for troops to quell the popular revolt.
      - riku_iki 4y ago
        > And yet Finland Finland could perfectly be next Russia's target after Ukraine. They just don't have enough resources at the moment.
rg111 4y ago
Yes I know. Basic game theory comes to mind. But if you have closely observed China, you know that it is not some private hacker arguing in favor of development of AI drones in some private forum. It is some Harvard/Stanford/Peking/Tsinghua educated scientific policy advisor deep inside the army/government doing this job.
- ben_w 4y ago
  The useful thing with game theory, is we can go the other way to work out what's likely to encourage cooperation. Well, I hope we can at lest, because the more tech we get, the harder it hurts when someone decides to defect.
  - Frost1x 4y ago
    I'd love to see more cooperative structures and policies but were obsessed with competition for some reason.
tb0ne 4y ago
I don't think there is a moral debate about developing autonomous military drones in China. These self-restrictions based on morality regarding the development of military drones is really something only some western nations do. Other countries, if they reach the capabilites to develop them, they just do.
mgraczyk 4y ago
The reason both sides are correct in their conclusion is precisely because there is a "Chinese version of hacker news"
Frost1x 4y ago
I'd argue that negative aspects of the world are inevitable in competitive environments given survival instincs humans have. The fact is, a lot of things really are zero-sum, like land (e.g. Russia and Ukraine)--there's only so much of it the way we take ownership of it. Ultimately this sort of environment leads to competition over resources vs collaboration between humans. So long as environments are competitive and people want to survive, the rest emerges inevitably I think. I always found modern conflicts interesting because humans basically formed societies to reduce competition and dangers, to help their odds. We can now take turns taking watch at night and I sleep most days vs living as a nomand I'm always in danger for my life and resources. We then moved from hunter gathers to agrarian societies because it provided even more security and stability, we didn't have to compete for food we could contribute, grow it, and share it. We formed towns, built houses. We worked together. Then somewhere along the line we decided to reintroduce survival dynamics abstractly in these safer societies. We reduced your food security and livelihood security based on valuations of your contribution to society, we add power dynamics and authorities of control, created the idea of private property rights, we setup market places where people compete abstractly through wealth transfers in the forms of money, then we tied things back securities like food and housing to these things. Maybe we got bored and many want to be in a threatened survival state. I'd like to think we, as a species, could toss the people obsessed with accumulating wealth and power to the curb and try stripping away many layers of abstract competition we created and look at creating layers of collaboration. It doesn't need to be another failed attempt at socialism, but it seems like we can at least be far less competitive to one another and still grow.
imtringued 4y ago
What if there is an easy and painfully trivial answer to achieve world peace and avoid wars? Imagine you are one of a million people on this planet who know the secret. Everyone else won't believe you because it is too simple and hence very easy to abuse in the other direction. What if it was as simple as flicking a switch and just doing it? Here is the problem. If it just about flicking a switch, how to make sure people don't switch it from utopia back to dystopia? Your utopia needs to be a self preserving system even in the face of violence. A pacifist system that isn't self preserving will be destroyed and taken over by non pacifist systems that are self preserving at least in the short run. A democracy needs the backing of a military force to keep it alive. If there is something better than democracy then it will also need a military to protect itself.

You do realise that right now on a Chinese version of hacker news, a Chinese version of you is making the same argument? The messed up aspects of this world aren't inevitable, we all take part.

archontes 4y ago

This is the tragedy of the commons. Its solution is a central authority. How do we get there?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

belval 4y ago

As they should, with 8 billions inhabitants, assuming that peace can be kept on good intentions is the pacifist fallacy. We just got a wonderful example with the invasion of Ukraine. You can be nice, you can play nice, you can apply sanctions, send strongly worded statement, and yet Ukrainians are dying and tanks are still rolling in. You know what's stopping the Russians? Javelins and Bayraktars.

tsimionescu 4y ago
The right lesson to learn from Ukraine is that big countries are ever willing to sacrifice small countries in their bids for power. Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion. Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years. There is 0 chance Russia will back off. Of course, it will also weaken Russia, which is what Europe and the USA actually want. Putin fell right into their trap, and Ukraine thinks it's being helped.
- lovich 4y ago
  > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion. By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Russia could take Ukraine today with no more materiel losses and they will be worse off than when they started. The only way they could consider this a win is if they consider ideological reasons, but if you include those you can’t say the Ukrainians would be better off if they value freedom more than they value staying alive
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    Russia is better off without a NATO presence at its borders, threatening regime change at the press of a button. Sure, NATO would avoid openly invading Russia, but just like we are currently fighting in Ukraine with everything except (overt) manpower, our expansion would not stop at Russia's current borders. Every separatist movement inside the Russian Federation would (will) find a good friend in NATO. Stopping this expansion at Ukraine, and reminding their people the immoral lengths they are willing to go to when their interests are threatened, is a major strategic goal for Russian leaders. > By that logic wouldn’t the Russians be much better off if they had worked with the international community to avoid this war as their industrial base is crumbling around them and they are losing massive amounts of manpower? Absolutely, and what I'm saying is not justification for this disturbing invasion. The invasion obviously puts Putin and other Russian elites' interest above those of their citizens, as can be expected from an authoritarian oligarchy.
    - CamperBob2 4y ago
      Gee. I wonder why the US and most other world powers don't have an international treaty organization exclusively dedicated to defending other countries against the possibility of aggression by them? If you don't invade your neighbors, you have nothing to fear from NATO. Edit due to rate-limiting: OK, I'll amend my comment. Don't invade your neighbors or commit genocide, and you don't have anything to fear from NATO. Better? As for Iraq and Afghanistan, NATO activated Article 5 because the US was attacked by terrorists based in Afghanistan on 9/11, but my understanding is that the coalition forces that went into Iraq were not NATO-affiliated. Is that understanding incorrect?
- chowells 4y ago
  Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. Ukraine has had its own independent culture for thousands of years. Russian propaganda doesn't erase history. Russia's ultimate goal is to erase Ukraine. What's the compromise between "you need to stop existing" and "we exist", again?
  - ejb999 4y ago
    >>Ah yes. Appeasement. Always a winning strategy. It worked fabulously for Neville Chamberlain didn't it? </sarc>
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    The main reason Putin attacked Ukraine is the ever growing NATO presence in Ukraine, which is an existential threat to the current Russian regime. If NATO got Ukraine, Putin would likely be the next target. And negotiation is always the winning strategy, since in war everyone loses.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      There was no NATO in Ukraine, but now Sweden and Finland are NATO. The reason is why Ukraine is existential threat to current Russian regime is because they have democracy and personal freedom, which spreads around (Belarus, Kazahstan, etc) and challenges foundation of Putin regime.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        Ukraine's constitution says they will try to join NATO. NATO has explicitly said its door is open to Ukraine. Putin's puppet leader of Ukraine was ousted with US involvement. For the past 8+ years, NATO had been pouring money, weapons, training and intel into Ukraine. Last year, they had held joint military exercises, with NATO troops temporarily stationed inside Ukraine. Now that the war has started, but only is NATO pouring weapons and Intel into Ukraine, they are actually providing detailed targeting data for much of Ukraine's long-range weaponry. NATO guns are being wielded by NATO-trained soldiers deployed in positions suggested by NATO tacticians based on NATO intelligence gathering. The guns are targeted by NATO computers. Ukrainians are basically only pulling the trigger, and of course taking the bullets. So saying "there was no NATO in Ukraine" is quite absurd. On the other hand, Putin has clearly misjudged this invasion, and it has already become a costly mistake from all points of view. Finland and Sweden joining NATO is a major blow, in addition to the economic sanctions, while the initial failure of his all fronts invasion has surely been a major blow to the image of the Russian military. However, while this is great news for NATO, it doesn't mean that it's also great news for Ukraine, which has already sacrificed much. And personally, I believe this invasion is Russia's last stand: that will either crush Ukraine into dust (assuming Ukraine doesn't acquiesce), or they will crumble themselves. I don't think nuclear weapons are off the table for Russia if it thinks the alternative is pulling out of Ukraine with no guarantees it will abandon cooperation with NATO.
- jwineinger 4y ago
  Appeasement has been tried before, to great loss.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war, especially after heroically successfully resisting the blitzkrieg-style initial invasion The war started immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russian puppet government. They didn't successfully resist the initial anything; Russia seized Crimea and infiltrated and set up proxies in Eastern Ukraine, and Ukraine was unable to do much about it. > Instead, goaded on the by the USA and Europe, they are fighting a losing war that will hurt tens or hundreds of thousands over the coming years. The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands. > There is 0 chance Russia will back off They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II. > Putin fell right into their trap I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap. The US and other friends of Ukraine spend most of a decade openly arming and training Ukraine after the 2014 invasion, repeatedly saying Russia should stop interfering and warning, with increasing urgency, of their knowledge of and commitment to opposing Russia’s plan for a new, large scale invasion in 2022, going so far as to release detailed intelligence of the orders for that invasion that Putin has given. Pretty easy trap to avoid if you don't want to fall into it, what with everyone pointing out where it is, how bad it would be to step in it, and how to avoid it.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    > The war started immediately after Ukraine threw out the Russian puppet government. Neglecting US involvement in that revolution/coup hides a big part of the story. The US ambassador to Ukraine and Victoria Nuland were discussing who should replace Russia's puppets a full two weeks before the people actually got rid of him - which Russian spies discovered and published. > The war Russia initiated and bears full responsibility for has hurt millions already (and in fact had hurt millions before the 2022 escalation), not mere tens or hundreds of thousands. Right - I was thinking more of deaths, but you're right harm has indeed come to millions of people, from Russia's unjust war. > They will back off before or after they collapse from the cost of the war, but either way they will back off. They’ve lost vastly more in lives and treasure in a few months than the much larger USSR did in a decade in Afghanistan. Putin may dream of recreating the Empire of Peter the Great, but he's heading more toward Nicholas II. I honestly believe there is a high chance Russia would rather throw the dice and nuke Ukraine before allowing the war to end, unless they get down guarantees that NATO involvement in Ukraine will stop completely. What would happen next is impossible to predict, as we would be stepping into an entirely new world. > I mean, if you mean by the 2022 escalation, it was a pretty well-marked trap. The trap was constant escalation of NATO presence in Ukraine, culminating in the joint military exercises in 2021, forcing Putin to react.
- Zanfa 4y ago
  > Ukrainians would have been much better off had they worked with Russia to avoid or quickly settle the war You don’t “work with Russia”. You either surrender completely and have leadership controlled from Moscow or get labeled a nazi regime itching to invade Russia.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    And yet Finland, Germany, even France, China - all managed to work with Russia decently well, at least before the current desperate show of force from Putin.
    - Zanfa 4y ago
      Finland is probably the only exception to the rule and only because they managed to kick a lot of russian ass back in the day. China is significantly more powerful player than Russia. Germany and France don’t share a border with russia.
      - riku_iki 4y ago
        > Germany and France don’t share a border with russia. Its more they are part of NATO, which Russia not ready to confront directly.
      - tsimionescu 4y ago
        I also forgot Mongolia and Kazakhstan on the list of nations that are neither Russian puppets nor in danger of invasion. And further out, Russia has good relations with India as well (not sure about Pakistan). To be fair, there were some significant disagreements between Kazakhstan and Russia after Putin made comments about their traditional statehood, prompting several threats from their own authoritarian leader, but when Kazakh leadership felt threatened by protesters, they appealed to Russia for troops to quell the popular revolt.
    - riku_iki 4y ago
      > And yet Finland Finland could perfectly be next Russia's target after Ukraine. They just don't have enough resources at the moment.

rg111 4y ago

Yes I know. Basic game theory comes to mind. But if you have closely observed China, you know that it is not some private hacker arguing in favor of development of AI drones in some private forum. It is some Harvard/Stanford/Peking/Tsinghua educated scientific policy advisor deep inside the army/government doing this job.

ben_w 4y ago
The useful thing with game theory, is we can go the other way to work out what's likely to encourage cooperation. Well, I hope we can at lest, because the more tech we get, the harder it hurts when someone decides to defect.
- Frost1x 4y ago
  I'd love to see more cooperative structures and policies but were obsessed with competition for some reason.

tb0ne 4y ago

I don't think there is a moral debate about developing autonomous military drones in China. These self-restrictions based on morality regarding the development of military drones is really something only some western nations do. Other countries, if they reach the capabilites to develop them, they just do.

mgraczyk 4y ago

The reason both sides are correct in their conclusion is precisely because there is a "Chinese version of hacker news"

Frost1x 4y ago

I'd argue that negative aspects of the world are inevitable in competitive environments given survival instincs humans have. The fact is, a lot of things really are zero-sum, like land (e.g. Russia and Ukraine)--there's only so much of it the way we take ownership of it. Ultimately this sort of environment leads to competition over resources vs collaboration between humans. So long as environments are competitive and people want to survive, the rest emerges inevitably I think. I always found modern conflicts interesting because humans basically formed societies to reduce competition and dangers, to help their odds. We can now take turns taking watch at night and I sleep most days vs living as a nomand I'm always in danger for my life and resources. We then moved from hunter gathers to agrarian societies because it provided even more security and stability, we didn't have to compete for food we could contribute, grow it, and share it. We formed towns, built houses. We worked together. Then somewhere along the line we decided to reintroduce survival dynamics abstractly in these safer societies. We reduced your food security and livelihood security based on valuations of your contribution to society, we add power dynamics and authorities of control, created the idea of private property rights, we setup market places where people compete abstractly through wealth transfers in the forms of money, then we tied things back securities like food and housing to these things. Maybe we got bored and many want to be in a threatened survival state. I'd like to think we, as a species, could toss the people obsessed with accumulating wealth and power to the curb and try stripping away many layers of abstract competition we created and look at creating layers of collaboration. It doesn't need to be another failed attempt at socialism, but it seems like we can at least be far less competitive to one another and still grow.

imtringued 4y ago

What if there is an easy and painfully trivial answer to achieve world peace and avoid wars? Imagine you are one of a million people on this planet who know the secret. Everyone else won't believe you because it is too simple and hence very easy to abuse in the other direction. What if it was as simple as flicking a switch and just doing it? Here is the problem. If it just about flicking a switch, how to make sure people don't switch it from utopia back to dystopia? Your utopia needs to be a self preserving system even in the face of violence. A pacifist system that isn't self preserving will be destroyed and taken over by non pacifist systems that are self preserving at least in the short run. A democracy needs the backing of a military force to keep it alive. If there is something better than democracy then it will also need a military to protect itself.