3 ms·
That's a false choice. By investing in weapons instead of diplomacy, we've created this world of tit-for-tat violence. We can dismantle it too, it's not necessa
by text0404 6mo ago
That's a false choice. By investing in weapons instead of diplomacy, we've created this world of tit-for-tat violence. We can dismantle it too, it's not necessary to continue escalating until we exterminate our species.
- simianwords 6mo ago"We've" wdym? You don't get to decide the rules. Your adversary is not signing a legally binding contract.
- text0404 6mo ago"We" as a species with common interests like "not eradicating ourselves through violence."
- simianwords 6mo agoI agree with you, but your adversary may not think in a sufficiently developed way. Which is why we had such destructive wars in the past..
- text0404 6mo agoMaybe we should leverage all of this supposedly world-changing AI to move on from primitive wars instead of using it to build more weapons. At a certain point, our species will be faced with a choice between maintaining the status quo (climate destruction, mass casualties through violent conflicts, food/water shortages, extinction-level events, etc) or working together to forge a sustainable path forward for the benefit of the species. An argument that this current world order is just how things are and there's nothing to be done but escalate is just a vote for the former.
- simianwords 6mo agoI definitely don't think that the current world order is just how things are. That does not mean you should act now in terms of how the world order _would be in the future_.
- XajniN 6mo agoYou are not aware of the interests of your enemies.