3 ms·

It isn't HN-specific. It is about how we all individually see the problem, but do nothing about. It is a choice. Be a cog in the machine that makes your life l

It isn't HN-specific. It is about how we all individually see the problem, but do nothing about. It is a choice. Be a cog in the machine that makes your life livable, but makes everyone's just a little bit worse by doing so instead of trying to change the system. A single raindrop never feels responsible for the flood. If we all, just the technologists all got together and said, hey, quit it with that war shit and refused to make new or maintain old war making machines, war would end almost immediately. But the system has made the consequences of an individual or a minority doing that disastrously bad for them if they do it alone. It is a cage of fear. Legitimate fear. Fear of what would happen if we end up standing alone in our rebellion. But we don't. We read HN and talk about making money. And that economic output, that money will be used against us to make things worse for everybody but the plutocracy that controls the political duopoly.

Hannan 14y ago
How would that work? As in, what percentage of the technologists would need to agree to that to have it happen? It seems to me (with my extremely limited view of economics), that it would just create shortage of supply, and so the technologists that would continue to participate would make a lot more money. That in turn would make it more difficult for the techs that might agree with your position, but are currently in dismal financial circumstances for whatever reason, to refuse to create/maintain the "war machines." Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, and am the problem you're speaking of. But it seems like a "boil the ocean" proposition to me, at least from any way I can try to envision it happening.
- wladimir 14y ago
  Perhaps putting a social stigma on the people that do 'cooporate with the war machine' could avoid that, similar to that on people that work even though a certain group is on strike. I'm pretty pessimistic as well, but I don't think it's impossible. A group can collectively bargain for rights, it would not be the first time in history that happens.

Hannan 14y ago

How would that work? As in, what percentage of the technologists would need to agree to that to have it happen? It seems to me (with my extremely limited view of economics), that it would just create shortage of supply, and so the technologists that would continue to participate would make a lot more money. That in turn would make it more difficult for the techs that might agree with your position, but are currently in dismal financial circumstances for whatever reason, to refuse to create/maintain the "war machines." Perhaps I'm too pessimistic, and am the problem you're speaking of. But it seems like a "boil the ocean" proposition to me, at least from any way I can try to envision it happening.

wladimir 14y ago
Perhaps putting a social stigma on the people that do 'cooporate with the war machine' could avoid that, similar to that on people that work even though a certain group is on strike. I'm pretty pessimistic as well, but I don't think it's impossible. A group can collectively bargain for rights, it would not be the first time in history that happens.