4 ms·
War will be significantly more risky with no population growth
by photonbeam 3y ago
War will be significantly more risky with no population growth
- tetris11 3y agoAt art history museums you can see paintings of hundreds of cavalry men protecting a star shaped fort, nervously watching a mob of yesteryear patrons go about their day. Protecting capital meant hiring hundreds of flesh and blood soldiers back then. In 2010 the same job could be done with 10 men holding machine guns. In 2030, we have drones. Humans need not apply.
- nindalf 3y agoCould be done with 10 men? In 2023 Russia had significantly more than 10 men protecting Moscow from a rebellion. Thing is, you need more if the enemy also has the same weapons.
- tetris11 3y agoTell me the total casualties haven't been on the whole declining since the dawn of time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_battles_by_casualties
- postmodfemenist 3y ago[flagged]
- dredmorbius 3y agoBe kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." <https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>
- otabdeveloper4 3y agoThink one step further: if people become much more valuable and rare, targeting and killing them will become more valuable too.
- nerdponx 3y agoAnd yet if resources are running out, what are your other options? Either you definitely die, or you fight and maybe die or maybe get more resources and don't die.