6 ms·

Of course this would get upvoted on HN. A blog post by an impractical contrarian outsider who's seriously suggesting that the entire world replace advanced weap

• nerdbert 3y ago
  We really are doomed because some people like to think of ways that we could kill fewer of each other?
  • Diti 3y ago
    Reverting to bow and crossbows wouldn’t reduce the amount of people killed. Look up “tactical crossbow” (or assault crossbow) in your favorite search engine.
    • pixl97 3y ago
      Honestly probably would increase it. For the last 80 or so years the nuclear weapon has likely reduced the number of deaths in war more than anything else. Of course it's hard to prove a counterfactual. This said, the cost of outright war with nukes is so terrible that the large nations of the world have avoided going toe to toe and instead engaged in smaller proxy wars, that while terrible, have had relatively low population kill rate in relation to what occurred in world wars.
  • robertlagrant 3y ago
    No, it's the ridiculous irony of thinking everyone would cooperate, but would still want to kill each other.
    • mbork_pl 3y ago
      How about the fact that laws of war[0] exist? [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
      • hef19898 3y ago
        Which unfortunately get ignored all the time by everyone.
        • amanaplanacanal 3y ago
          Not all the time, occasionally the winners use them to take revenge on the losers.
          • hef19898 3y ago
            Unless of course, the winner dod the same thing (unconditional submarine warfare, strategic bombing). But then I think people will have less decency when it comes to these things than back in 1945.
      • foolswisdom 3y ago
        Lots of these laws of war exist to limit the gruesomeness of war, but if you think it's reasonably necessary for the objective of the war, these rules (legally) go out the window (completely, but to whatever extent is necessary). For example <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportionality_(law)>
    • metabagel 3y ago
      I think it’s just a thought experiment.
• jareklupinski 3y ago
  > dozens of people are taking this premise seriously and debating it on its merits. Veteran's Day is being observed today in the US not all of us but some are a bit bored today :)
• PaulStatezny 3y ago
  > Of course this would get upvoted on HN I agree for less pessimistic reasons. The Hacker News crowd prefers intellectually stimulating conversation. Considering unexplored alternatives. Exploring ideas is a huge pillar of this community. Engaging in that process doesn't mean that any of us think this could happen in the real world.
• PaulStatezny 3y ago
  > Of course this would get upvoted on HN I agree for less pessimistic reasons. The Hacker News crowd prefers intellectually stimulating conversation. Playing around with new ideas. Considering unexplored alternatives. A huge pillar of this community is exploring ideas. Engaging in that doesn't mean that any of us think this could happen in the real world.
• drtz 3y ago
  > The Onion couldn't come up with this. It's so embarrassing. And yet, as I type this, dozens of people are taking this premise seriously and debating it on its merits. Humans really are doomed. Personally, I find discussion about hypothetical, albeit completely impractical, ways we could avoid killing each other a much better use of time than a lot of other topics, like discussing ways we could kill each other more efficiently.
  • dalbasal 3y ago
    case in point, I suppose. Ok. Fine. I'm in. Let's discuss it. Do you think we're better off using ai to decide the arms treaties, or should we hold off for quantum computing?
  • hef19898 3y ago
    Agree, but then humanity spent a considerble effort since the dawn of time exactly on that: developing ways to kill things faster and safer for oneself. It is, sadly, part of our nature. And because of that I prefer hypotheticals that actually have some basis in reality. By the way so, during the time of bow, arrow, sword, spear and shield, we still managed to kill hundreds of thousands of people.
    • stareatgoats 3y ago
      > part of our nature. This comes up now and then. But it doesn't hold water, because if true then people would on average be killing people roughly at the same rate, regardless of epoch, geographical area or society. But nations and tribes that were constantly warring have over time become good, peaceful neighbors, while the opposite is the exception. In spite of the impression one might get from the daily news, person-on-person violence is at an historical low. Why is this explanation still popular, despite the obvious falsity of it? Good question, not sure. Maybe for now suffice to say that it isn't true whenever it pops up. Eventually we might start scrutinizing the real reasons (or lack thereof) for going to war, and the mindless slaughter it necessarily entails.
      • pixl97 3y ago
• bioneuralnet 3y ago
  Impractical ideas can be entertaining, even useful, thought exercises. Valid ideas and discussions can occur, even if the starting point is out of reach.
• trident5000 3y ago
  Not to dismiss the entire HN community (theres some good discussion on here and it probably swings a bit older than most places) but the majority of people who even have the time to vote and comment on the internet tend to be younger and pretty naive. This is especially true on places like Reddit.
• NoMoreNicksLeft 3y ago
  I've revised my own opinion of this. Its premise may be as absurd as you suggest, but I think that's just a framing device to compare the two weapons. Normally, they're incomparable in the same way that comparing a packmule to a container ship is. Both of those might be used to transport goods, but writing up a comparison to the two is difficult to do without some way to frame it in a way that could engage the reader. And whatever other effect he might have on you, he engaged you enough to leave this comment. I think it worked.
• deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
• cplusplusfellow 3y ago
  A much simpler solution is to just ensure that politicians' children (and politicians themselves on rotation, perhaps) are the very first to the front lines in any given war they choose to conduct.
  • jcranmer 3y ago
    Well, considering that the ages when this was expected of political leaders were also far more violent and had far more endemic warfare than modern times, maybe this actually isn't a good idea.
    • red-iron-pine 3y ago
      the led the armies, but they also led the country. all of the risk and all of the reward.
  • bell-cot 3y ago
    These days...I'd put their leading financial backers (& children) on the front lines instead.
  • adamredwoods 3y ago
    They won't. That's the problem, politicians and dictators don't see war the same way as civilians do.
  • some_random 3y ago
    Have you ever looked at how many American politicians are veterans? How many of them have children who are in the armed forces? It's certainly not universal, but they do have children who would be fighting their wars and they have fought in the last generation's wars.
    • kube-system 3y ago
      I looked it up. 18% of congress is a veteran. 6.2% of the general population is.
  • 3y ago
• chmod600 3y ago
  The point of weapons is a bit complicated. One interpretation is that they create fear of engaging in violence in the first place. In that respect the killing ability may be secondary.
• s_dev 3y ago
  >Of course this would get upvoted on HN Entire article begins with "What If" and then explores it seriously. What if questions are important even if the subsequent topic isn't fundamentally serious.
• tacitusarc 3y ago
  > Rather than being technically superior weapons, firearms took the skills and muscular effort out of killing someone from a distance This, after detailed explanations that amount to why firearms are technically superior. It is very silly.
• onlyrealcuzzo 3y ago
  > Humans really are doomed. I agree with you, except no. I mean, the universe will eventually die in heat death - and long before that Earth will become inhospitable - and even before that - we'll probably get smashed by some giant meteor or something. Smart people wasting braincells on pointless thought experiments does not make us doomed. On the contrary, the extremely-rare crazy idea that turns out to be genius is probably worth all the pointless debate.
• bell-cot 3y ago
  Um...have you ever noticed just how many interesting-but-of-no-practical-use-whatever things are popular on HN? We are for-sure not setting public policy priorities here.
• metabagel 3y ago
  I read it as a stimulating thought experiment. It's supposed to get you thinking outside of those well worn ruts. Of course, those ruts are often well worn because they are tried and true, but it's nice to go off road once in a while.
• adamredwoods 3y ago
  I think the point of the article was to show how much more lethal the average human has become over the years. The initial question, was clickbait. >> Rather than being technically superior weapons, firearms took the skills and muscular effort out of killing someone from a distance. The main reason most European armies switched from bows to crossbows and then firearms was the short learning curves of these weapons. Crossbowmen and musketeers required little or no training, while it took many years of practice to build an archer skillful and strong enough to be of use in warfare. The crossbow and the firearm thus expanded the number of people in a given population that could become soldiers. That was great news for those in power because they could now build large armies quickly.
  • User23 3y ago
    > the point of the article was to show how much more lethal the average human has become over the years. The initial question, was clickbait That’s unfortunate then, since that point is verifiably false. Historically speaking people do considerably less killing today than they did in the past, despite having inferior weapons[1]. There is in fact a solid argument that readily available superior weaponry has a net zero effect on violence. For example controlling for demographics the USA’s murder rate is roughly on par with the Western European countries. And indeed, rural home invasions are virtually unheard of in the USA while they do occur in Europe. [1] https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/london-medieval-murder-map/historical-background https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/vrcresearch/london-medieval-m...
    • red-iron-pine 3y ago
      > For example controlling for demographics bro just come out and say it
      • User23 3y ago
        I did. Is there something you wish to add?
    • adamredwoods 3y ago
• lapinot 3y ago
  > an impractical contrarian outsider I guess you didn't read much of lowtechmag, which is definitely just about the opposite of "impractical", being much centered on actual experimentation, detailed technical analysis etc. But then again "of course people on HN" would get offended by such slightly technocritical pov. > suggesting that the entire world replace advanced weaponry with stuff that got phased out hundreds of years ago Exactly what part of the title starting with "What if" did you not understand? This article -- like several other on the website, but for this one it's particularly obvious -- are thought experiment, designed very much to confront people with unusual ideas and hence make the current norm more obvious.