34 ms·

Please tell me you were being sarcastic :( What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? Tha

Please tell me you were being sarcastic :( What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. How long will it take until other major and minor powers have them, too? Then that advantage shrinks or even disappears, yet the robots remain. How long until they get turned on citizens? What leg would you have to stand on, morally, if you justify wars of aggression by (thinking you're) profiting from them? If it was profitable to crush dissent with robots, none. This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Here's a thought, if you post on HN, you're by definition not part of the group who would stand to gain by such things. HN may represent a elite in comparison with other groups, but in comparison with actual elites it still represents peons. Last, but not least: what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place?

krapp 13y ago
I was being sarcastic. However your points are worth stirring the pot over. >What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it. >That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. You're correct. That's exactly what I think it's like. It's not fair and it's not just. >This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around. And this is a complex question. But it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive. >what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place? If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not. "Gain" from warfare can be a subtle thing, and can be doled out across generations, even millennia. I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.
- PavlovsCat 13y ago
  I feel a bit silly now, I really thought you might have meant it seriously and with a straight face. But I guess there are those who would say it with a straight face, so I'm glad we can have this discussion anyway. > It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it. So far, since the end of the cold war, the US is waging war on much weaker enemies, not any who pose an actual threat to its existence. And I think even conquering any and all potential threats will inevitably mean turning onto its own citizens, too, I believe. I mean, even more so than that is already the case. And China for example will rise either way, a military defense against aggression might be unrealistic; however, there is also culture, and being worth more as an ally than a conquered territory. More importantly, there is democracy; not yet in China, heck, not yet hardly anywhere, but in theory. And people in general don't like war, it's the elites that use them as cannonfodders and bill payers in them who do. Not being hateworthy seems less risky than trying to win all the time and constantly increasing the stakes. But sadly I think the US is very used to being aggressive, and assumes everybody else is, too, that only American power keeps them in check. I don't think this is true. > Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around Of course they're not, but we're talking about the US military on an american website. And the US, at least for the time being, is the top dog. The path the US takes is very important to me because of that, I do think it trickles down to everybody else to a degree, or at least makes it harder to achieve some progress and sanity in other countries. > it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive. I disagree, though I guess it's hard to know for sure, because how would we measure it? Still, I think when a nation wages war, the citizens get to shoulder all the costs (or debt, in the case of the US), but they don't get a comparable share in the profits. And I don't think that share outweighs the costs to them, either. > If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not. Of course. But I also derive a lot of benefit of things people in general are doing. By "not buying into nations" I meant I don't feel pride in "my" country, just like I don't feel pride in what another right-hander, or male, or member of any other group I could be said to "belong to", is doing. War does live off this spectator sports mentality, and I just don't feel it. It has nothing to do with the internet, at least for me, though I hope it can help that process along. Nations are a way to organize things on a certain scale, but no more. They are not holy or special, they are arbitrary. > I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others. Sure, but I think we have long since reached a point where the drawbacks of constant warfare and greed are bigger than the benefits of co-operation, though I can not really prove it. One thing is true for sure though, co-operation is also as old as history; if parents and children fought each other over food, we wouldn't exist. We're not just products of exploitation and slaughter, not by a long shot. And whatever put us here, now we are here: with an ability to think and make choices. I actually don't think humans always slaughtered each other whenever they could and derived some benefit from it. That is, scarcity makes us do that, and nowadays I feel this scarcity is also artificially created, even more so going forward. Greed also creates scarcity: if one is greedy enough, they will not ever be satisfied, even ruling the whole universe. That way lies at best despair, at worst disaster - so why not look for a better way to spend the time until the heat death? Yes, I'm an idealist. I believe in striving for something worthwhile more than adapting myself to what I found, and leaving it behind the way I found it. I like to believe this is true: [Humans] have been genetically programmed through hunting behavior: cooperation and sharing. Cooperation between members of the same band was a practical necessity for most hunting societies; so was the sharing of food. Since meat is perishable in most climates except that of the Arctic, it could not be preserved. Luck in hunting was not equally divided among all hunters; hence the practical outcome was that those who had luck today would share their food with those who would be lucky tomorrow. Assuming hunting behavior led to genetic changes, the conclusion would be that modern man has an innate impulse for cooperation and sharing, rather than for killing and cruelty. Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"

krapp 13y ago

I was being sarcastic. However your points are worth stirring the pot over. >What's the upside of being "on the side" of an entity of even less hesitation of engaging in aggressive warfare? It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it. >That's like saying making it easier to beat up kids and take their lunch money is a plus, as long as you're the one doing it - and that's the mildest example I could think of, to keep this as nice and friendly as possible. You're correct. That's exactly what I think it's like. It's not fair and it's not just. >This idea of "sides" is very flawed, too. Are US citizens on the side of those who lead them into wars, or do these wars more and more mean profit to a very small subset to them, and huge costs to the rest? Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around. And this is a complex question. But it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive. >what if you're "on the side of humans", and don't buy into the whole nationality stuff in the first place? If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not. "Gain" from warfare can be a subtle thing, and can be doled out across generations, even millennia. I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others.

PavlovsCat 13y ago
I feel a bit silly now, I really thought you might have meant it seriously and with a straight face. But I guess there are those who would say it with a straight face, so I'm glad we can have this discussion anyway. > It would be preferable not to engage in aggressive warfare. But it's also preferable not to be the one who ends up dead from it. So far, since the end of the cold war, the US is waging war on much weaker enemies, not any who pose an actual threat to its existence. And I think even conquering any and all potential threats will inevitably mean turning onto its own citizens, too, I believe. I mean, even more so than that is already the case. And China for example will rise either way, a military defense against aggression might be unrealistic; however, there is also culture, and being worth more as an ally than a conquered territory. More importantly, there is democracy; not yet in China, heck, not yet hardly anywhere, but in theory. And people in general don't like war, it's the elites that use them as cannonfodders and bill payers in them who do. Not being hateworthy seems less risky than trying to win all the time and constantly increasing the stakes. But sadly I think the US is very used to being aggressive, and assumes everybody else is, too, that only American power keeps them in check. I don't think this is true. > Americans are by no means the only militaristic nationalists around Of course they're not, but we're talking about the US military on an american website. And the US, at least for the time being, is the top dog. The path the US takes is very important to me because of that, I do think it trickles down to everybody else to a degree, or at least makes it harder to achieve some progress and sanity in other countries. > it's worth pointing out that those two things are not mutually exclusive. I disagree, though I guess it's hard to know for sure, because how would we measure it? Still, I think when a nation wages war, the citizens get to shoulder all the costs (or debt, in the case of the US), but they don't get a comparable share in the profits. And I don't think that share outweighs the costs to them, either. > If you're born into a nation, and into the systems which brought it into being, and you derive benefits from it - food, education, language, culture - then I believe you are to a degree a paricipant in or benefactor of the crimes which made those benefits possible. They were done on your behalf whether you like it or not. Of course. But I also derive a lot of benefit of things people in general are doing. By "not buying into nations" I meant I don't feel pride in "my" country, just like I don't feel pride in what another right-hander, or male, or member of any other group I could be said to "belong to", is doing. War does live off this spectator sports mentality, and I just don't feel it. It has nothing to do with the internet, at least for me, though I hope it can help that process along. Nations are a way to organize things on a certain scale, but no more. They are not holy or special, they are arbitrary. > I think you can put yourself beyond nationalism if you wish, and doing so is understandable in a post-Internet age. But I don't believe that puts you above it. You are a product of the industries of slavery, barbarism, greed and genocide, as am I, as is every human being. Before nations, people slaughtered one another in the name of their tribe, or their clan, or their family, or gods. We are all of us standing atop a pile of bones simply by virtue of birth... it's just that some piles are bigger than others. Sure, but I think we have long since reached a point where the drawbacks of constant warfare and greed are bigger than the benefits of co-operation, though I can not really prove it. One thing is true for sure though, co-operation is also as old as history; if parents and children fought each other over food, we wouldn't exist. We're not just products of exploitation and slaughter, not by a long shot. And whatever put us here, now we are here: with an ability to think and make choices. I actually don't think humans always slaughtered each other whenever they could and derived some benefit from it. That is, scarcity makes us do that, and nowadays I feel this scarcity is also artificially created, even more so going forward. Greed also creates scarcity: if one is greedy enough, they will not ever be satisfied, even ruling the whole universe. That way lies at best despair, at worst disaster - so why not look for a better way to spend the time until the heat death? Yes, I'm an idealist. I believe in striving for something worthwhile more than adapting myself to what I found, and leaving it behind the way I found it. I like to believe this is true: [Humans] have been genetically programmed through hunting behavior: cooperation and sharing. Cooperation between members of the same band was a practical necessity for most hunting societies; so was the sharing of food. Since meat is perishable in most climates except that of the Arctic, it could not be preserved. Luck in hunting was not equally divided among all hunters; hence the practical outcome was that those who had luck today would share their food with those who would be lucky tomorrow. Assuming hunting behavior led to genetic changes, the conclusion would be that modern man has an innate impulse for cooperation and sharing, rather than for killing and cruelty. Erich Fromm, "The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness"