3 ms·
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do.
by dragonwriter 2y ago
> Should be obvious that whatever AI does, people are capable and resilient enough to naturally respond to it for everyone's benefit. It's just what people do.
It's not “just what people do” in some kind of simple, automatic, no-conscious-action-required sense, it’s a difficult process that often requires violent conflict between those empowered by the new development and those they exploit (that was certainly the case after the Industrial Revolution), a major part of which is people looking for and publicly calling out the problems.
- delusional 2y agoIt's like 80 years happen and people forget that we go to war in our own countries as well. Conflict is not just something that happens in the middle-east. The stability has to be cherished and nurtured.
- vFunct 2y agoYah the Industrial Revolution wasn't a direct cause of any war. There are zero wars that are a result of economic efficiency. And, no, colonialism isn't economic efficiency. Economic efficiency is a very specific thing. It doesn't mean "whatever unfair thing I don't like".
- achierius 2y agoReally? None of the British invasions of the African interior would have been possible without industrialized. "We've got the Maxim gun and they've..." etc. People died, societies were conquered -- you might not consider those to qualify as wars, but the people conquered certainly did.
- vFunct 2y agoWarfare exists independently of economic efficiency. Colonialism would have happened regardless of technological advancement.
- achierius 2y agoThis is completely false. Colonialism depended on an incredible technological and economic gap between the colonizers and the colonized. Without that gap, colonialism would not have happened -- it's as simple as that.
- bigstrat2003 2y agoI am not convinced that's true. Rome colonized vast swathes of the world long before the industrial revolution, without an incredible technological gap between them and the regions they conquered. It is not hard to imagine that a similar thing could have occurred with the European nations which colonized other parts of the world later on. Having a massive technology edge certainly helped a great deal, but I think that it was not necessarily required.
- delusional 2y agoThat is an impossible point to argue. What we can say is that historically they have been linked. The Danish slave trade was, as an example, fueled by weapon technology exports to African warlords in exchange for enslaving the population they defeated. As the story goes, no Dane set foot in the african interior. We instead assisted the already warring factions with technology allowing them to subject more people to their war. I think it's hard to envision how any of this could have happened without those wars.