5 ms·

> they are the best of us This gets said a lot, so I'll bite. Are they really? Many are just people able to go through the years of soul crushing things like b

> they are the best of us This gets said a lot, so I'll bite. Are they really? Many are just people able to go through the years of soul crushing things like being in the military. There are some straight up scientists on board, sure, I'll give that to them. But a lot are science people that are also fine doing things like flying bombing missions over the middle east. Killing tons of people isn't really a thing I respect.

rurp 2y ago
It's awfully uncharitable to assume that someone is a bad person just from serving in the military. The military has done some reprehensible things at times, but it has also done a lot of good and the unfortunate reality is that in the world as it currently exists a strong military is a requirement for a free society. I don't agree with the fetishizing of the service that goes on in some circles, but taking the opposite extreme is not any better. People should be judged on their individual actions.
- dTal 2y ago
  I don't think they said they were "bad people". But it's a fair objection that anyone who is content to sign away their personal autonomy to a violent organization may not represent "the best" of us, in some philosophically meaningful sense. Insofar that it's true that "a strong military is a requirement for a free society", it's because people like that exist.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    >Insofar that it's true that "a strong military is a requirement for a free society", it's because people like that exist. Yes, but there's no way to change that; it's human nature. Without a military, other countries with strong militaries will happily impose themselves on you: Nazi Germany, Russia/SU, etc. History is full of accounts of what happens when people don't have enough military power to resist invasion by a country of evildoers with their own powerful military. Similarly, police frequently suck, but the alternative is even worse. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to ignore laws and prey on others if they didn't have to worry about police enforcement.
    - boffinAudio 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - mtalantikite 2y ago
      > Yes, but there's no way to change that; it's human nature. I think this is a dangerous idea, that humans are just violent and abusive by nature and it's impossible to change. It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed. I'll just quote Thay because he does it so well: "We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come." Thich Nhat Hanh from Living Buddha, Living Christ
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        >I think this is a dangerous idea, that humans are just violent and abusive by nature and it's impossible to change. All evidence points to this being the case. We have many millennia of history showing it to be true, over and over. >It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed. How and what to eat is also something that is learned and taught and passed down, but it's not something that can be changed without radically changing human physiology. >and sooner or later we will make new bombs. Of course, because if you don't, someone else will. Just look at Russia and North Korea. >To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. Good luck with that. As long as people enjoy dominating and exploiting others, it can't change.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      >History is full of accounts of what happens We don't even need to look back, Ukraine can tell us all about that today.
  - Iulioh 2y ago
    >anyone who is content to sign away their personal autonomy to a violent organization Honestly non-physical violence is sometimes overlooked. Economic decisions cause way more violence is mpre subtle ways. A new policy in banking or from insurance companies can lead to more deaths than a what an entire branch of the military. Hell, i think high decisions from Google can cause deaths in prioritizing certain arguments over others. So i don't think that just begin a part of the system makes you bad, making the decisions does.
    - dTal 2y ago
      Right, we all have a responsibility to act ethically in all parts of our lives. Refuse to work for organizations that do unethical things; if you are in an organization, refuse to do unethical things even if it gets you fired. Do not facilitate the doing of unethical things in any way. The difference with the military is you can be put in prison for behaving this way.
      - Iulioh 2y ago
        From the other side of the argument >>Refuse to work for organizations that do unethical things Is a easy way to ensure that said organizzation won't ever change.
        dTal 2y ago
        Not at all. If enough people refuse to compromise their principles, the labor supply will shrink for that org, and therefore their hiring costs will increase, leaving them fewer resources to achieve their unethical deeds. "I'll change it from the inside" is a lie people tell themselves, but in reality they get steamrollered by the internal processes. If you don't have a backbone at hiring time, why would you grow one down the line when you're already dependent on them for your livelihood? No - do your part and refuse to play.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
tomcam 2y ago
Just to ensure both of us get severely downvoted and not just you, I have a parallel way of looking at it. Most people appear to be more... let's say, optimistic than I am. I tend to take a very conservative engineer or economist way of assessing the risks. About 3% of American astronauts have died in space, and about 4.5% have died during missions (which includes takeoffs). "Only" 15% of smokers get lung cancer. These numbers don't work for me. Yet plenty of smart people are willing to take those odds. I can only conclude that if people smarter than I am are good to go with those stats, then it means they have some kind of built-in optimism that I lack. Your notion of the military being "soul crushing" is not shared by all people in the military. Starting around the sergeant level there are tons of very interesting problems to solve. Some find it super fulfilling, and certainly many dudes who have been in combat felt it was the only time in their experience to feel really alive. So for different reasons I come to the same conclusion as you. They aren't really heroes, just people doing something they find compelling. And they measure risk and reward very differently from me. > Killing tons of people isn't really a thing I respect. Well, context matters, doesn't it? Sometimes violence is required to solve problems. The US had to kill 700,000 of its own to eliminate slavery. And while Europe lost tens of millions, the US sacrificed over 400,000 helping them out in WWII. Once the Germans attacked Poland and the Japanese attacked us, how would you have solve these problems without violence? Ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked out.
- dTal 2y ago
  Thing is, once you're in the military, you don't get to choose who to kill. You are not permitted to say "I do not think violence is required to solve this particular problem". You are not afforded the privilege of conscience. You are required to switch that part of your brain off.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Yes, because a military would not be effective at all if every soldier got to question every tactical or strategic decision. That's why it's your job as a citizen to pick better leaders, because those leaders are in charge of the military.
- 2y ago
runlevel1 2y ago
Well, maybe not the one who drove across the country in a diaper to assault her ex-boyfriend's lover.
exe34 2y ago
if you hate the military that much, why do you make use of the benefits? why not move to the other side and enjoy real freedom?
- alamortsubite 2y ago
  Would that put them in a better or worse position to improve what they see as shortcomings of the military? Where does the instinct to suggest the cowardly approach of running away from a problem come from?
  - exe34 2y ago
    it's coming from the hypocrisy of saying they want the scientists working on something else, and expect to magically keep the same freedoms.
WalterBright 2y ago
The most effective way to avoid fighting is to have military superiority. Bullies pick on the weak, not the powerful.
- davedx 2y ago
  It really depends on who is in charge. I'm reading Kissinger's "On China" at the moment, and Mao, who led the most populous country on Earth for a significant time, was way more motivated by ideology and the notion that "struggle" was the highest priority, than he was by the comparative military strength of who China engaged in wars with. That being said, he wasn't single minded either (e.g. he also mostly followed Chinese principles of not being overly interventionist, unlike the US), and his views did seem to gradually change over time. But he also said things like: "We have a very large territory and a big population. Atomic bombs could not kill all of us." Repeatedly. === Nazi Germany and Japan weren't deterred at all by military strength either, I don't think? Again ideology overrode every other consideration with WW2? So I'm not sure if "deterrence" really helps prevent major conflicts at all...
  - WalterBright 2y ago
    > Nazi Germany and Japan weren't deterred at all by military strength either Oh, yes they were! Hitler thought the Soviet Army was rotten from top to bottom, thought the British were weak and could be defeated by the Luftwaffe, and thought the US would never fight. He was right on all three counts, but the Soviets, British, and the US turned themselves into powerhouses. The Japanese were afraid of the US, and thought they could get the US to stay on the sidelines by knockout out the carriers in Pearl. How wrong they were.
- specialist 2y ago
  "If you desire peace, prepare for war."
- mtalantikite 2y ago
  I'm not sure, aren't the most powerful typically bullies? The UK had probably the strongest Navy in the world for a long while and used it to colonize and extract wealth from a large part of the world. There's a controversial calculation that they took about $45 trillion from south asian alone, but even if it was only a fraction of that it's certainly an example of the powerful bullying the "weak". History is littered with these examples. We're seeing it happen in Israel/Palestine as we speak. It's not like the US spent all our money on the military and became a chill, benevolent international partner.

rurp 2y ago

It's awfully uncharitable to assume that someone is a bad person just from serving in the military. The military has done some reprehensible things at times, but it has also done a lot of good and the unfortunate reality is that in the world as it currently exists a strong military is a requirement for a free society. I don't agree with the fetishizing of the service that goes on in some circles, but taking the opposite extreme is not any better. People should be judged on their individual actions.

dTal 2y ago
I don't think they said they were "bad people". But it's a fair objection that anyone who is content to sign away their personal autonomy to a violent organization may not represent "the best" of us, in some philosophically meaningful sense. Insofar that it's true that "a strong military is a requirement for a free society", it's because people like that exist.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  >Insofar that it's true that "a strong military is a requirement for a free society", it's because people like that exist. Yes, but there's no way to change that; it's human nature. Without a military, other countries with strong militaries will happily impose themselves on you: Nazi Germany, Russia/SU, etc. History is full of accounts of what happens when people don't have enough military power to resist invasion by a country of evildoers with their own powerful military. Similarly, police frequently suck, but the alternative is even worse. There's no shortage of people who would be happy to ignore laws and prey on others if they didn't have to worry about police enforcement.
  - boffinAudio 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - mtalantikite 2y ago
    > Yes, but there's no way to change that; it's human nature. I think this is a dangerous idea, that humans are just violent and abusive by nature and it's impossible to change. It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed. I'll just quote Thay because he does it so well: "We often think of peace as the absence of war, that if powerful countries would reduce their weapon arsenals, we could have peace. But if we look deeply into the weapons, we see our own minds- our own prejudices, fears and ignorance. Even if we transport all the bombs to the moon, the roots of war and the roots of bombs are still there, in our hearts and minds, and sooner or later we will make new bombs. To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. To prepare for war, to give millions of men and women the opportunity to practice killing day and night in their hearts, is to plant millions of seeds of violence, anger, frustration, and fear that will be passed on for generations to come." Thich Nhat Hanh from Living Buddha, Living Christ
    - shiroiushi 2y ago
      >I think this is a dangerous idea, that humans are just violent and abusive by nature and it's impossible to change. All evidence points to this being the case. We have many millennia of history showing it to be true, over and over. >It's something that is learned and taught and passed down, like anything else, which means it can be changed. How and what to eat is also something that is learned and taught and passed down, but it's not something that can be changed without radically changing human physiology. >and sooner or later we will make new bombs. Of course, because if you don't, someone else will. Just look at Russia and North Korea. >To work for peace is to uproot war from ourselves and from the hearts of men and women. Good luck with that. As long as people enjoy dominating and exploiting others, it can't change.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    >History is full of accounts of what happens We don't even need to look back, Ukraine can tell us all about that today.
- Iulioh 2y ago
  >anyone who is content to sign away their personal autonomy to a violent organization Honestly non-physical violence is sometimes overlooked. Economic decisions cause way more violence is mpre subtle ways. A new policy in banking or from insurance companies can lead to more deaths than a what an entire branch of the military. Hell, i think high decisions from Google can cause deaths in prioritizing certain arguments over others. So i don't think that just begin a part of the system makes you bad, making the decisions does.
  - dTal 2y ago
    Right, we all have a responsibility to act ethically in all parts of our lives. Refuse to work for organizations that do unethical things; if you are in an organization, refuse to do unethical things even if it gets you fired. Do not facilitate the doing of unethical things in any way. The difference with the military is you can be put in prison for behaving this way.
    - Iulioh 2y ago
      From the other side of the argument >>Refuse to work for organizations that do unethical things Is a easy way to ensure that said organizzation won't ever change.
      - dTal 2y ago
        Not at all. If enough people refuse to compromise their principles, the labor supply will shrink for that org, and therefore their hiring costs will increase, leaving them fewer resources to achieve their unethical deeds. "I'll change it from the inside" is a lie people tell themselves, but in reality they get steamrollered by the internal processes. If you don't have a backbone at hiring time, why would you grow one down the line when you're already dependent on them for your livelihood? No - do your part and refuse to play.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

tomcam 2y ago

Just to ensure both of us get severely downvoted and not just you, I have a parallel way of looking at it. Most people appear to be more... let's say, optimistic than I am. I tend to take a very conservative engineer or economist way of assessing the risks. About 3% of American astronauts have died in space, and about 4.5% have died during missions (which includes takeoffs). "Only" 15% of smokers get lung cancer. These numbers don't work for me. Yet plenty of smart people are willing to take those odds. I can only conclude that if people smarter than I am are good to go with those stats, then it means they have some kind of built-in optimism that I lack. Your notion of the military being "soul crushing" is not shared by all people in the military. Starting around the sergeant level there are tons of very interesting problems to solve. Some find it super fulfilling, and certainly many dudes who have been in combat felt it was the only time in their experience to feel really alive. So for different reasons I come to the same conclusion as you. They aren't really heroes, just people doing something they find compelling. And they measure risk and reward very differently from me. > Killing tons of people isn't really a thing I respect. Well, context matters, doesn't it? Sometimes violence is required to solve problems. The US had to kill 700,000 of its own to eliminate slavery. And while Europe lost tens of millions, the US sacrificed over 400,000 helping them out in WWII. Once the Germans attacked Poland and the Japanese attacked us, how would you have solve these problems without violence? Ask Neville Chamberlain how that worked out.

dTal 2y ago
Thing is, once you're in the military, you don't get to choose who to kill. You are not permitted to say "I do not think violence is required to solve this particular problem". You are not afforded the privilege of conscience. You are required to switch that part of your brain off.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Yes, because a military would not be effective at all if every soldier got to question every tactical or strategic decision. That's why it's your job as a citizen to pick better leaders, because those leaders are in charge of the military.
2y ago

runlevel1 2y ago

Well, maybe not the one who drove across the country in a diaper to assault her ex-boyfriend's lover.

exe34 2y ago

if you hate the military that much, why do you make use of the benefits? why not move to the other side and enjoy real freedom?

alamortsubite 2y ago
Would that put them in a better or worse position to improve what they see as shortcomings of the military? Where does the instinct to suggest the cowardly approach of running away from a problem come from?
- exe34 2y ago
  it's coming from the hypocrisy of saying they want the scientists working on something else, and expect to magically keep the same freedoms.

WalterBright 2y ago

The most effective way to avoid fighting is to have military superiority. Bullies pick on the weak, not the powerful.

davedx 2y ago
It really depends on who is in charge. I'm reading Kissinger's "On China" at the moment, and Mao, who led the most populous country on Earth for a significant time, was way more motivated by ideology and the notion that "struggle" was the highest priority, than he was by the comparative military strength of who China engaged in wars with. That being said, he wasn't single minded either (e.g. he also mostly followed Chinese principles of not being overly interventionist, unlike the US), and his views did seem to gradually change over time. But he also said things like: "We have a very large territory and a big population. Atomic bombs could not kill all of us." Repeatedly. === Nazi Germany and Japan weren't deterred at all by military strength either, I don't think? Again ideology overrode every other consideration with WW2? So I'm not sure if "deterrence" really helps prevent major conflicts at all...
- WalterBright 2y ago
  > Nazi Germany and Japan weren't deterred at all by military strength either Oh, yes they were! Hitler thought the Soviet Army was rotten from top to bottom, thought the British were weak and could be defeated by the Luftwaffe, and thought the US would never fight. He was right on all three counts, but the Soviets, British, and the US turned themselves into powerhouses. The Japanese were afraid of the US, and thought they could get the US to stay on the sidelines by knockout out the carriers in Pearl. How wrong they were.
specialist 2y ago
"If you desire peace, prepare for war."
mtalantikite 2y ago
I'm not sure, aren't the most powerful typically bullies? The UK had probably the strongest Navy in the world for a long while and used it to colonize and extract wealth from a large part of the world. There's a controversial calculation that they took about $45 trillion from south asian alone, but even if it was only a fraction of that it's certainly an example of the powerful bullying the "weak". History is littered with these examples. We're seeing it happen in Israel/Palestine as we speak. It's not like the US spent all our money on the military and became a chill, benevolent international partner.