7 ms·

Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines. There's a whole world of applications for

by jaekwon 13y ago

Surely you're intelligent enough to see the distinction between Barber surgeons, grave robbers, and killing machines. There's a whole world of applications for AI and machinery that we could be pooling our resources into, but instead we're funding a continuing war on "terror" abroad. There's no reason why the war is necessary, no reason why technological progress would be made faster in the art of killing vs anything else. Perhaps you believe that perpetual war is unavoidable and necessary. We could argue that. But the way I see it, war isn't necessary, and the technological progress we make by funding war is a slim silver lining at best on a double edged sword with no handle. So you see, I find this thread ridiculous. I think you guys are psychopaths. And you're outnumbered by the rest of us.

classicsnoot 13y ago
Your use of "us" is adorable. There have always been more of "you". Who else would make up the wave assaults, mass labour pools, and factory employees? War may not be necessary from an emotional standpoint, but from a technological standpoint it is the only game in town. The recent developments in peaceful IT are unique in human history, and they themselves are predicated on war technology and research. In fact, i challenge you to name one area of technology that is not based on war research and military development. I don't think you can name a single device that is not built off of something war related. I have a special place in my heart for the myth of pure science and research. I also believe it could become a reality. I posted ITT about how it might be possible to counter the militarization of our air. I think a few successive generations of scientists who are not affiliated with war making could bring about peaceful advancement, but as it stands now, technology absolutely requires mistrustful nations, reckless generals, and politely amoral science and tech workers. All of that AI and "machinery" has a military background. They control the purse, so they dictate the purpose. Surely you are canny enough to know that petty appeals to my "intelligence" only serve to make you seem desperate to be right. All 3 of those things, hell all things, are neither good nor bad. They are merely titles given based on context. Context is everything. A civilian sees a RPV as a killing machine. A EOD tech sees a drone as an insurance policy. A president sees a Predator as a solution. I see a way for normal people to enhance their effect in shaping their world. All of us see the same toy, but we all have a different use for it. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that context can bring new light to any topic or situation...
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  What war was Genetics (Device: Micro Arrays, PCR Machines, etc) built off of and applicable to? Or do you count that as 'medicine'? In that case you can reduce everything all the way down to cave men battling over fire. I don't disagree that war time has pushed science for the vast majority of history... But there are fields that were not created initially with offensive or defensive purposes in mind. Edit: Added devices to example
  - classicsnoot 13y ago
    My girlfriend went the BioMed route as well when i posed this question to her. Personally i would have tried business machines. The bulk of all modern medicine (western at least) owes its regimen and SOP to military medicine. Just as i have seen ligatures (tourniquet) go from a no-no to standard practice in the last 10 years, each generation has watched medical science be advanced by martial situations. Epidemiology, rehabilitation, prostheses, surgery; they all are where they are now because of war and the responses to war. Modern sensing equipment is a grandchild of the tech build up of the cold war. Fracking super glue was a Vietnam War Era advancement. I do not like it, as i think human on human war is an obsolete expression of very small groups of wealthy folk colluding to expand (ditto for racism), but i think it is a bit naive to assume we can just carry on with the march to the stars on the assumption that peaceful means of technological advancement are superior/ will be adequate. Humanity requires a challenge to be its best self. I grow tired of the challenge being an artifice of business (which is the predicate for all wars. all.), and if Global Climate Shift is in any way alterable, i sincerely hope that humanity's response will be the next "war", or concerted conflict if you will. War is not the key ingredient, but it is by far the best catalyst known to people thus far.
    - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
      So you're going with the "Everything came from the caveman's need for fire" argument it sounds like. Unarguably true if you want to reduce that far. I still don't think you can come up with a logical example of Genetics being a war tool (yet) though. Yes Medicine has benefited from war time progress in many ways. But Medicine is not Genetics. While Genetics may be part of medicine (squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares). All of the things you mentioned (surgery, rehab, prosthesis, etc) were practical medical applications for the battlefield, while Genetics was not created for or applicable to such things (although it has seen more recent attempts to apply it in that fashion). Also business machines can easily be tied to war. IBM + Nazi Germany. Finally challenge need not come exclusively from war. For instance using my example of Genetics, the challenge of explaining how traits are passed (or any sufficiently broad challenge), and being the first one to come up with it (scooping people and stealing their work to do so: Rosalyn Franklin) can drive people as well. I don't disagree that war pushes innovation in any way. To say such a thing would be naive and ignorant of history. But it is not the only game in town. Edit: Clarification of sentence structure.
neals 13y ago
War is the only way forward. The funding of war machines comes from a desire to survive. A fear to die. This will always take precedence over any other kind of progress. Stop investing in start-ups and a couple of people will be a little less wealthy. Stop investing in the military and we and/or our way of live dies within a decade.
- classicsnoot 13y ago
  War is the fastest way forward. The funding of war machines comes from a desire for possessions. A fear of being weak. This will always take precedence in the minds of politicians and aristocrats over any other concerns. Stop investing intellectual capital into dreams and ambitions, and we will continue to stagnate. Stop investing intellectual capital in the military and bureaucracy and we must actually have a healthy dialogue and interplay with the rest of the world. I grew up in the DCon capital of the world, friend. I have heard every iteration of the jingoist "spend or die" speech. I am fed, clothed, and housed by tax dollars spent on "expanding capability" and "maintaining status quo". It is not about security and freedom, it is about securing profits and freeing untapped investment. Do you think that DCon is somehow different than SV? Small groups of whip smart young people using the lost ideas of an older generation to carve out a slice of an expanding market. Information Technology and War Technology are two facets of the same gem. Your original premise may be accurate, but i do not believe it is correct. The path you take effects the place you go in many ways, and not all of them are obvious or even observable at the moment of choosing.

by jaekwon 13y ago

classicsnoot 13y ago

Your use of "us" is adorable. There have always been more of "you". Who else would make up the wave assaults, mass labour pools, and factory employees? War may not be necessary from an emotional standpoint, but from a technological standpoint it is the only game in town. The recent developments in peaceful IT are unique in human history, and they themselves are predicated on war technology and research. In fact, i challenge you to name one area of technology that is not based on war research and military development. I don't think you can name a single device that is not built off of something war related. I have a special place in my heart for the myth of pure science and research. I also believe it could become a reality. I posted ITT about how it might be possible to counter the militarization of our air. I think a few successive generations of scientists who are not affiliated with war making could bring about peaceful advancement, but as it stands now, technology absolutely requires mistrustful nations, reckless generals, and politely amoral science and tech workers. All of that AI and "machinery" has a military background. They control the purse, so they dictate the purpose. Surely you are canny enough to know that petty appeals to my "intelligence" only serve to make you seem desperate to be right. All 3 of those things, hell all things, are neither good nor bad. They are merely titles given based on context. Context is everything. A civilian sees a RPV as a killing machine. A EOD tech sees a drone as an insurance policy. A president sees a Predator as a solution. I see a way for normal people to enhance their effect in shaping their world. All of us see the same toy, but we all have a different use for it. Surely you are intelligent enough to understand that context can bring new light to any topic or situation...

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
What war was Genetics (Device: Micro Arrays, PCR Machines, etc) built off of and applicable to? Or do you count that as 'medicine'? In that case you can reduce everything all the way down to cave men battling over fire. I don't disagree that war time has pushed science for the vast majority of history... But there are fields that were not created initially with offensive or defensive purposes in mind. Edit: Added devices to example
- classicsnoot 13y ago
  My girlfriend went the BioMed route as well when i posed this question to her. Personally i would have tried business machines. The bulk of all modern medicine (western at least) owes its regimen and SOP to military medicine. Just as i have seen ligatures (tourniquet) go from a no-no to standard practice in the last 10 years, each generation has watched medical science be advanced by martial situations. Epidemiology, rehabilitation, prostheses, surgery; they all are where they are now because of war and the responses to war. Modern sensing equipment is a grandchild of the tech build up of the cold war. Fracking super glue was a Vietnam War Era advancement. I do not like it, as i think human on human war is an obsolete expression of very small groups of wealthy folk colluding to expand (ditto for racism), but i think it is a bit naive to assume we can just carry on with the march to the stars on the assumption that peaceful means of technological advancement are superior/ will be adequate. Humanity requires a challenge to be its best self. I grow tired of the challenge being an artifice of business (which is the predicate for all wars. all.), and if Global Climate Shift is in any way alterable, i sincerely hope that humanity's response will be the next "war", or concerted conflict if you will. War is not the key ingredient, but it is by far the best catalyst known to people thus far.
  - ItendToDisagree 13y ago
    So you're going with the "Everything came from the caveman's need for fire" argument it sounds like. Unarguably true if you want to reduce that far. I still don't think you can come up with a logical example of Genetics being a war tool (yet) though. Yes Medicine has benefited from war time progress in many ways. But Medicine is not Genetics. While Genetics may be part of medicine (squares are rectangles but rectangles are not squares). All of the things you mentioned (surgery, rehab, prosthesis, etc) were practical medical applications for the battlefield, while Genetics was not created for or applicable to such things (although it has seen more recent attempts to apply it in that fashion). Also business machines can easily be tied to war. IBM + Nazi Germany. Finally challenge need not come exclusively from war. For instance using my example of Genetics, the challenge of explaining how traits are passed (or any sufficiently broad challenge), and being the first one to come up with it (scooping people and stealing their work to do so: Rosalyn Franklin) can drive people as well. I don't disagree that war pushes innovation in any way. To say such a thing would be naive and ignorant of history. But it is not the only game in town. Edit: Clarification of sentence structure.

neals 13y ago

War is the only way forward. The funding of war machines comes from a desire to survive. A fear to die. This will always take precedence over any other kind of progress. Stop investing in start-ups and a couple of people will be a little less wealthy. Stop investing in the military and we and/or our way of live dies within a decade.

classicsnoot 13y ago
War is the fastest way forward. The funding of war machines comes from a desire for possessions. A fear of being weak. This will always take precedence in the minds of politicians and aristocrats over any other concerns. Stop investing intellectual capital into dreams and ambitions, and we will continue to stagnate. Stop investing intellectual capital in the military and bureaucracy and we must actually have a healthy dialogue and interplay with the rest of the world. I grew up in the DCon capital of the world, friend. I have heard every iteration of the jingoist "spend or die" speech. I am fed, clothed, and housed by tax dollars spent on "expanding capability" and "maintaining status quo". It is not about security and freedom, it is about securing profits and freeing untapped investment. Do you think that DCon is somehow different than SV? Small groups of whip smart young people using the lost ideas of an older generation to carve out a slice of an expanding market. Information Technology and War Technology are two facets of the same gem. Your original premise may be accurate, but i do not believe it is correct. The path you take effects the place you go in many ways, and not all of them are obvious or even observable at the moment of choosing.