I don't want wars.
But tell me, what would you like your country to do when conflicts arise due to want of natural resources? Would you want your country to just give up that resource your people depend on, like may be 50/50?
Do you believe it will always be possible to settle on a solution in a peaceful way that works for everyone?
I think it's very reasonable to not want your products or work going towards making it easier for the US military wage unjustified wars.
I also think it would be reasonable to change your stance on that if America entered a war that you felt was justified.
(For example, I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.)
Saying the military can't use your tool _today_ doesn't prevent you from changing your mind _tomorrow._
> I don't want to work for the military, but if we were being invaded I would consider it.
I am not. Every country is corrupt, and war makes a lot of money for powerful people, but does it justify sabotaging your own existence?
‘Sabotaging your own existence’ is a magic sentence that can justify everything. Israel can kill children more than any other nation in the world, and justify it by ‘not sabotaging their own existence’
Anyone can do anything with this perspective. This is the exact point gere. Pull yourself back, if you are about to ‘not sabotage your own existence’ by simply killing innocent civilians because you believe a computer algorithm told you in about 15 years they or their children might do something harmful.
Not really. Not unless one is thinking in absolutes, at which point one is by definition an extremist.
The rational dialogue that emerges is the proper size of a military for defensive—but not continuous offensive—purposes. I’d guess, for America, that is half its current size at most. (The wrong answers are zero and $1.4tn.)
But I think that is a question that anyone would rather not consider.
The issue is that if you don't consider that question, and jump into discussion or actions, in general just have an "outrage", then it would be very hard to take you seriously.
What would your response be? What is the value of `x` at which you will approve of the pre-emptive attack?
Just curious.
What is your percentage to say no lets do not take actions. Because again; with this perspective every single action is legitimate. There is a chance for everything. If there is a weapon that can kill every human on the planet, every country will race to invent it because every country will try to invent it. Every action is valid. Every weapon development is okey, because if you dont, others will. You can kill everyone, because everyone might eventually try to kill you, there is always a chance.
We both know that it is not true. Because by this logic, you wouldn't fire a weapon at someone who is about to stab your wife or child. Because there is a small chance that they will die of a heart attack before they can do it. So it is some value that is < 100%, but apparently that is not good enough for you.
On top of that, while you are pulling some hypothetical scenarios, the reality is exactly as I described. Governments, especially us gov, kept invading, bombing and killing people based on some subjective percentages and this is still ongoing.
Although you did not like my ‘prefer to die instead of kill’ idea, you still did not solve ‘you can kill everyone since there is a chance anyone can kill you’ problem. And reality is closer to latter, unfortunately.
Your example seems to validate my point of view: warmongers disguise their subjectivity by basing their actions on “objective” models.
It does not have anything to do with objectivity. I thought it to be futile to discuss that since, as you implied, predicting future can't be 100% objective, and thus decisions to avert a bad future outcome always need to be based on subjective decisions.
So this is another question where I want to ask you how you would make a subjective call.
Make your call.
Or childrens died because of invasion is more objective?
Which one?
Like we have solar now. People talk about how it saves environment. But I think another similar win would be reduction in dependency on oil, and countries won't have to go to war over oil. But it takes time...
But it seems what technology gives, technology takes away. Because new technologies comes with its own resource requirements. And the cycle looks like it will go on...
So be it.
This doesn't excuse going to war with neighbors because you want to steal their stuff. Learn to live with yours.
Would you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Especially if you weren't really starving, just preemptively stealing their supplies?
All this talk of hoarding and taking resources by force used to be the stuff of villains. When did it become normalized?
If don't, then I will have to say you got no idea about what you are talking about..
Have you? And did you murder your neighbor to steal their food? Did you believe the best course of action was to fight your neighbors?
Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world. In your imagined scenario, are they the poor starving family who must kill and steal to survive?
Dude. Think hard before getting backed into absurd metaphors.
I haven't, and that is why I am not making higher-than-you, virtuous claims about how I would act in that situation. Maybe you should do the same.
>Your ridiculous analogy doesn't even apply to the US, one of the wealthiest countries in the world
And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth. If a external entity can choke your economy and if your government just stand-by, virtue-signaling to people such as yourselves, your wealth will disappear in no time. BOOM! Back to zero...
Then maybe stop making up hypotheticals that don't apply to me, you, or any of the nations involved? What are you hoping to achieve here? "Let's assume we live in a Mad Max world, would you steal all the women and water"?
> And where did that wealth come from? Sure, you have smart people, but it also require a functioning economy to mobilize and convert all those talent into wealth
So you think the US doesn't have a functioning economy or smart people, and therefore must resort to war to get their resources?
> BOOM! Back to zero...
So, in your bizarre logic, it's best to resort to theft and murder?
1. You will see no protest on the street.
2. You will see no homeless on the street.
3. You will hear no more school shootings or any shooting.
4. No more tech companies conflicting with the government.
5. No one will sue the government because it's perfect.
6. All bad people will disappear.
7. Everyone sings praise of the government.
This is better than Utopia, you should pursue it.