[flagged]
So do you think genocide is acceptable in war or not?
Why would downvoting your comment signify supporting genocide though?
My point was that we are better off with abstracting away the war, so if you downvote that idea, then you want to keep the current system, and to win a war in the current system you need total surrender, which comes at a huge cost of life.
You got it?
I still don't understand why you think this implies that I support genocide, when the exact opposite is true?
But you downvoted the idea, so you either don't like it or didn't understand. I assumed you understood it, but it seems you didn't
I downvoted because I don't find this quoted sentence true, realistic or even remotely plausible. I will repeat for the 4th time now that I don't understand why you seem to think that downvoting you means supporting genocide - you seem to be very fixated on that idea.
>>But you downvoted the idea
I did not - I thought I made it clear in my last comment.
I will believe that it is possible to “fix” war immediately after we “fix” poverty, extreme inequality, hunger, deaths of despair, and crime, any of which should be immensely easier to solve than war.
There are multiple genocides happening today.
Would you rather keep the current system? how do you really think the war in Iran or Ukraine would end? It won't end until one side is completely destroyed, that is why it is called wars of attrition. But war of attrition means what when each side is using commercialized cheaply produced intelligent drones?
You’re welcome to try, but I will no longer waste my time on it. I have studied it for years and I don’t believe it can be changed short of an energy revolution (fusion).
Edit: actually, even if we get fusion, the AI boom has shown that our energy use will automatically expand to consume all economically available energy and resources. So even that would likely not solve the issue.
World Wars I and II would have had similar effects if it weren’t for rapid global technological advancement and industrialization at this time, which enabled more rapid recovery. Much of the cheapest energy has been extracted by now, so the next serious global war will reduce global carrying capacity. With all that entails.
I actually think it will.
Because in the examples you gave, the world was not as connected. But look at what happening now, an economic bleed in one nation is impact the global economy in way that nobody even understands let alone predicts. You wage a war in Iran? alright, few weeks later people in Brazil can't have food because of shortage in fertilizer..US farmers increase prices by 40% because of the shortage, that causes riots in the US..we live in an extremely interconnected word and nothing short of a third global war would tear that system down.
We had nothing like this in the past, not the tech, nor the economies and the information system, that allows us to see what is happening.
The argument you are making is that it happened in the past with all these semi isolated empires therefore it would happen again. But the world we live is vastly different from the past. And I don't think your assertion hold into the future frankly, it is poorly defended.
You have too much confidence in people’s ability to identify a crisis across cultures and coordinate a collective response while accepting the often unequal costs that such a response would impose.
As I said, I don't think this is the same as the past, not even close. You can't assume the same results from a very different preconditions, yet you keep doing this.
The second point, you don't need to see far to understand, especially after this war with Iran, that the world economy is one organism, and you can't shoot the feet and hope to run happily by the other.
The increasing complexity of the supply chain comes with extreme fragility, and a series of cascading shocks could unravel it as in the Bronze Age. Over a sufficient time frame this is almost certain to occur.
Regardless, I agree that we are done, I understand your perspective as I once believed as you do. Good luck, and hopefully you are correct, for everyone’s sake.
What changed my mind is technology and not human nature.
1) Advancement in AI/Robotics/Drones that enabled asymmetric warfare
2) And this is the point that I don't think you are seeing, is that I don't think the future governance will actually be done by humans. Maybe "older" folks here would think it is fantasy/sci-fi, but I think as AI improve, the world gets more complex, and human brain show more limitation nations will gradually opt to using AI to make key decisions. Eventually, I think the entire economy will be managed by some sort of AI or a network of AIs. And I think it is the new generation that will be building those systems, the ones currently growing with AI.
I don't think you thought about that, because your point is that human nature is flawed, which I agree with, given that we are chimps with bigger brains. But that slight brain advantage gave us better technologies, and it seems to me it would either be the thing that completely destroy us or govern us to a better future (one would hope). The last point I want to add, humanity has walking on a very thin rope, and I think if we see a path forward, regardless of how narrow, we should aim for it. You keep your eyes on the rope when you know you can easily fall..and you certainly do not look back.
Most wars aren't fought in completely uninhabited areas. Drones will always have people to kill, and their controllers will always aim them at people.
Regarding the second point, UAE had 2400 projectiles on them with 10 causalities. This is a war of economies, not aim for people. So your second point doesn't also hold on the ground given the current systems let alone the system 50 years from now.
I think you have an unrealistic view of the rationality of people who go to war for stuff like this.
However, systems don't care about people irrationality, it will force them to behave in certain ways. We are seeing things unfold in front of our eyes clearly pertaining to the global energy.
Iran blocked the world supply forcing the global empire to retreat, it does't matter what Trump wants, at the end of the day, he is left with a dichotomy, either to escalate and further risk the global economy or retreat, and he had no option but to choose the later. He understood that destroying the world economy will be the end of his presidency and legacy.
If the future is merely a war of economies and drones, my point is that it would be closer to a video games than wars of the past. And this is a good thing!
I didn't say our preferences, voting, or opinions will change the system. I believe the system is being reshaped by new technology and a shifting world order—specifically AI, robotics, drone warfare, and a multilateral global structure. We are currently witnessing the first iteration of this kind of conflict: the MVP (Minimum Viable Product).
Think about it: Iran launched 2,400 projectiles at the UAE—a country of only 83,600 sq km—and caused only 10 casualties. Fifty years ago, if you had launched that many, you would have destroyed the entire country. Why the difference? Because it is literally robots fighting robots.
The reality is that these drones, missiles, and anti-missile systems require a global supply chain. To produce them, you need access to intelligence, GPS components, microprocessors, piston engines, aluminium, and more. No single country possesses all of these resources; in a war of attrition, if your supply chain is cut, you have already lost.
In a few years, we will see mass-produced robots and drones that are even more intelligent, all powered by AI. You can study the entirety of human history and you won't find any precedent for what is coming. The best analogy I can think of is a video game.
And frankly, don't we all want less loss of life?
You either agree with the future I suggest or disagree, or you think it won't happen and you would then have to argue why.