13 ms·

>why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting? Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered

>why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting? Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far

bigstrat2003 10mo ago
I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.
- Aloha 10mo ago
  The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
  - beeflet 10mo ago
    What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?
    - throw310822 10mo ago
      It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.
  - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
    If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.
    - makeitdouble 10mo ago
      You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.
    - Warwolt 10mo ago
      > they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
      - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
        Right, what I was getting at is -- that isn't a fatal problem in practice, the price stays affordable.
    - ACCount37 10mo ago
      Most dictatorships make no less than a half-hearted attempt to convince the population to support them. And then they make a point out of terrorizing the people who don't support them. Just so the others have no trouble discerning whether believing them is a good idea or not.
      - HaZeust 10mo ago
        Was this supposed to be a counter-argument?
    - deleted 10mo ago
      [deleted]
- beeflet 10mo ago
  The highly specialized vehicles of war are not that threatening in a civil conflict. Think about how much tax money it takes to purchase a tank for example. There is maybe 1 tank for every 1000 people, let's say. Yet it only takes a single rocket launcher to destroy a tank. Look at what happened to the USA in Afganistan recently. What really threatens the chances of popular revolution are the systems of surveillance and inter-dependence that we are building up, and the existence of killer drones that can compete with armed peasants at scale.
- acessoproibido 10mo ago
  Didnt the nation armed with all of this modern tech lose to a guerilla force of ricefarmers armed with sharpened sticks and AKs? Or do you think the Vietnam war would go very different now?
  - anon-3988 10mo ago
    The US could have easily, easily won the Vietnam war if they just dropped 1 or 2 nukes. The modern military is going to have drone that swarm the sky 24/7. They can develop virus that only they have the cure to. They can drop EMPs. They can grow their own food in their own lab while we all slowly die and wither outside. These are powers that are actually, technically, plausibly be granted to a single or several individual in the future. The future where human is obsolete is scary. Just reread that sentence again. Humans are obsolete.
    - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
      Since no one has bothered to explain how wrong you are… I’ll give you the easy version… Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews. The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck. You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?
      - HaZeust 10mo ago
        Thinking that people won't fall in line is blind idealism. Autonomous weapons of war are already here as it is - formidable individually, worse than a WMD at scale. Day by day, we're getting closer to a militaristic reality where a commanding officer doesn't need a subordinate's turnkey or permission to enact scaled conflict. Open a browser tab or start a conversation at a bar today, millions of people are in uproar because elected representatives and military officers issued a video that was JUST A REMINDER that military members have a moral and legal duty to reject manifestly illegal orders. Nevermind how they'll inevitably act when the chips are down, and it's now actually time to reject an order from the commander in chief - or someone that answers to him. This place fetishizes CGP Grey more than anything - watch his dictatorship video about only needing to hold a few "key" (figuratively and literally) officials in place to get your bidding done most efficiently.
- SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
  No offense, but ask someone in the military how wrong you are. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews. Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel. In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.
- pcrh 10mo ago
  That depends on your definition of "overthrow". Governments are routinely replaced in western democracies.
mrob 10mo ago
Historical leaders didn't have fully automated killer drone factories. (Just an example; a real AGI will probably come up with more effective ideas.)
myk9001 10mo ago
So, you literally read "unlimited supply of military via robots" in the parent comment, and still reply with this? Humanity truly doesn't stand a chance...
beeflet 10mo ago
"killbots, mow down these stupid protesters"
analog8374 10mo ago
So it's a mind control problem. We have a good technology for that

bigstrat2003 10mo ago

I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.

Aloha 10mo ago
The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.
- deleted 10mo ago
  [deleted]
- beeflet 10mo ago
  What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?
  - throw310822 10mo ago
    It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.
- throw-the-towel 10mo ago
  If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.
  - makeitdouble 10mo ago
    You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.
  - Warwolt 10mo ago
    > they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
    - throw-the-towel 10mo ago
      Right, what I was getting at is -- that isn't a fatal problem in practice, the price stays affordable.
  - ACCount37 10mo ago
    Most dictatorships make no less than a half-hearted attempt to convince the population to support them. And then they make a point out of terrorizing the people who don't support them. Just so the others have no trouble discerning whether believing them is a good idea or not.
    - HaZeust 10mo ago
      Was this supposed to be a counter-argument?
  - deleted 10mo ago
    [deleted]
beeflet 10mo ago
The highly specialized vehicles of war are not that threatening in a civil conflict. Think about how much tax money it takes to purchase a tank for example. There is maybe 1 tank for every 1000 people, let's say. Yet it only takes a single rocket launcher to destroy a tank. Look at what happened to the USA in Afganistan recently. What really threatens the chances of popular revolution are the systems of surveillance and inter-dependence that we are building up, and the existence of killer drones that can compete with armed peasants at scale.
acessoproibido 10mo ago
Didnt the nation armed with all of this modern tech lose to a guerilla force of ricefarmers armed with sharpened sticks and AKs? Or do you think the Vietnam war would go very different now?
- anon-3988 10mo ago
  The US could have easily, easily won the Vietnam war if they just dropped 1 or 2 nukes. The modern military is going to have drone that swarm the sky 24/7. They can develop virus that only they have the cure to. They can drop EMPs. They can grow their own food in their own lab while we all slowly die and wither outside. These are powers that are actually, technically, plausibly be granted to a single or several individual in the future. The future where human is obsolete is scary. Just reread that sentence again. Humans are obsolete.
  - SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
    Since no one has bothered to explain how wrong you are… I’ll give you the easy version… Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews. The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck. You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?
    - HaZeust 10mo ago
      Thinking that people won't fall in line is blind idealism. Autonomous weapons of war are already here as it is - formidable individually, worse than a WMD at scale. Day by day, we're getting closer to a militaristic reality where a commanding officer doesn't need a subordinate's turnkey or permission to enact scaled conflict. Open a browser tab or start a conversation at a bar today, millions of people are in uproar because elected representatives and military officers issued a video that was JUST A REMINDER that military members have a moral and legal duty to reject manifestly illegal orders. Nevermind how they'll inevitably act when the chips are down, and it's now actually time to reject an order from the commander in chief - or someone that answers to him. This place fetishizes CGP Grey more than anything - watch his dictatorship video about only needing to hold a few "key" (figuratively and literally) officials in place to get your bidding done most efficiently.
SV_BubbleTime 10mo ago
No offense, but ask someone in the military how wrong you are. Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews. Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel. In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.
pcrh 10mo ago
That depends on your definition of "overthrow". Governments are routinely replaced in western democracies.

mrob 10mo ago

Historical leaders didn't have fully automated killer drone factories. (Just an example; a real AGI will probably come up with more effective ideas.)

myk9001 10mo ago

So, you literally read "unlimited supply of military via robots" in the parent comment, and still reply with this? Humanity truly doesn't stand a chance...

beeflet 10mo ago

"killbots, mow down these stupid protesters"

analog8374 10mo ago

So it's a mind control problem. We have a good technology for that