A lot of amazing technology has been invented just for the purpose of killing people. It's nothing new. Humans are monkeys that like to kill other monkeys and no amount of civilization will change that.
This isn’t to excuse anything but to say there has been progress even if it’s not as fast as we’d like.
As far as the technology angle, the precision we have now and information we have now allow much more narrow targeting, but at the same time allows us to scrutinize military actions more.
The US and Israel have bombed several schools, hospitals, and civil servants' offices, and residential buildings. I read HRANA's report on the war every morning. [1] It's a quick read, they are a reliable Iranian opposition source (now based in the US).
Each day, there are multiple strikes on civilian infrastructure. No matter how precise they are, they are still war crimes.
The accuracy helps with showing intent, though, because when your 50% accuracy radius is a couple of meters and you put a couple of missiles on a target that’s a hundred of meters of anything else, it’s hard to argue they were sidetracked.
b) The scale of WW2 is so wildly different from the present that people find it difficult to imagine. The firebombing of Tokyo caused more casualties than one of the nuclear weapons.
(Follow on point from a: the original sin of all war crimes is starting a war of choice in the first place. Which the current war with Iran definitely is.)
If Japan had managed to secure the US uranium 250,000 innocent civilians would not have been vaporised in the two greatest disturbances in the force in all humanity.
I completely agree with you, moral progress should be incentivised somehow...
The problem is, there is no public town square anymore where we can shame the people who are responsible. The billionaires/megacorps control the media through which they communicate to the public.
In other words, the immoral actors have captured the systems meant to socially control them, and are instead using them to temper the moral instincts of society.
Whereas I have direct control over how I use technology.
I have no control over the technology that others use.
Whereas I have direct control over my own morality.
People can build technology, or I can build technology, but we generally all get it. Its distribution requires nothing of me or others psychologically.
You can't just build and distribute morality, and adopting it is a massive personal change.
There's so many ways in which morality is distributed.
There are also many things that stand in the way of adopting technology. Cost. Personal preference. Moral preference. Availability. Lack of awareness. Lack of specialized skill.
The two are not very different at all in how they diffuse through society.
(The organisation of the functioning of bodily orifices of the organism isn't really at all relevant for that. One might also add, that in the case of the burger, there might actually be an argument for some structural analogy that depends on the origin of the meat in a process of captivity and killing, that is organized in an industrial fashion..)
As for my comment on "monkeys":
1. Larger primates like chimpanzees are known predators that hunt and consume smaller monkeys, specifically targeting babies
2. In the famous Gombe Chimpanzee War (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War), a once-unified community split into two factions; over four years, one group systematically hunted down and killed every male member of the other.
3. In captive or introduced settings, groups may relentlessly bully "outsiders" who do not know the social norms, preventing them from eating or resting.
4. Non-lactating females may steal an infant from its mother and refuse to give it back, holding it until the baby dies of starvation or dehydration.
"Insulting to monkeys" is only an idea when you anthromorphize monkeys from the actual animals they are to something like Rafiki from Lion King. Nothing is insulting to monkeys because they don't understand the meaning of insult or care about it. They're raw animals and so are human beings.
If you look at the world around you today and think "yes, this is the result of people wanting to live a peaceful life" then I would say you're not being realistic.
Aspects of that behaviour appear in the behaviour of other primates, but not all primate groups have identical behaviours.
Chimpanzee behaviours also vary by troop and circumstances, just as might be expected from social behaviours.
Such behaviours _exist_, but they may not in fact be optimal, inevitable, etc.
Perhaps chimpanzees behave as they do 'cause the bonobo's didn't invite them to the cool parties.
Unlike in any other pursuit, in war, governments have at least some incentive to be efficient, lest they be outcompeted by the other side.
In peacetime science, all they care about is crossing the is, dashing the ts, and making sure that no icky ethics violations are likely to cause a PR scandal and get somebody ousted from their post.