Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.
On the other side of the coin to thinking there's something new about the way war is waged are the people who think they can wage war without the same consequences as befell nations before. It's fundamentally the same err, IMO. So I take moral objection to the pretense that there's something morally novel to criticize. This stuff is what happens in war, always. And things can get way worse than this, and will get worse the longer we tolerate open hostilities among nations.
Gamification is not a new word for an old idea. It's a new thing, at least in many contexts.
#1 seems a lot more human to me.
Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the other side of the world.
But now with both, being separated from the physicality, and the incentives via points (the same way arguably in app currencies are used in gacha games - "20 tokens for this character!" feels better than $40), this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.
Sorry for the rambley and extremely verbose reply but tbh it's absolutely horrifying and sickening to see as a fellow human, and I just wanted to get it out. (I'm obviously not saying Ukraine is wrong for wanting to protect territory - but it's the other aspects that are "awesome" (or awe-full?), in the wrong way of awe.)
Where technology creates greater moral hazards in war is when it helps insulate the leadership and population from the consequences of war, and so lowers the sociological and political costs to violence. In that sense having a professional rather than conscripted army should be much more morally repugnant than e-points. Again, no one in Ukraine is isolated from consequences in any meaningful way.
The Ukraine War is the most televised war in history. Especially in the beginning I forced myself to watch the videos, just so I wouldn't get lost in abstraction. The human suffering is gut wrenching. You can watch men getting shredded down; soldiers embracing each other in fear and helplessness moments before they're killed or maimed. Debates over e-points, to me, reflect a failure to appreciate the reality, a reality which is only hidden from one's view by choice. (After a few videos that left me crying, I figured I saw enough to ensure I was dutifully more engaged with the reality than the typical non-veteran at a comfortable remove.)
If anything drones and the necessity of having to record a kill for "points" is arguably an improvement over traditional aerially bombardment. Being forced to watch people injured and killed comes with a greater cost, even for veteran soldiers. On HN we take for granted that, e.g., Facebook employees forced to sift through child porn continually pay a price no matter how long they've been at the job, yet seem to assume soldiers watching a drone video feed feel no different than playing a video game. That perspective betrays a certain callousness that is in some respect even more worrisome than these technological advancements on the battlefield.
To clarify at the outset, I full understand your view and partly agree with it.
I just had some thoughts, and was reminded of something while reading your comment.
> All technological improvements will seem to have the effect of dehumanizing people...
> Where technology creates greater moral hazards in war is when it helps insulate the leadership and population from the consequences of war, and so lowers the sociological and political costs to violence...
These were also the results of the invention of the gatlin gun.
A gun made by the creator to save lives.
Of course, if you now can shoot 100 times as many bullets, you don't use 1/100th as many men, you just shoot 100x bullets.
Which... yeah. I wish I had a solution, but I don't. And obviously no one's going to ramp down their own death causing machines™ when the enemy has no incentive to. (Nuclear proliferation was probably only sucessful mainly because of the high level of difficulty in both the processes as well as material sourcing.)
> Debates over e-points, to me, reflect a failure to appreciate the reality...
I don't think the debate (at least not from my side) is over e points; it's more "shit, war's already terrible, and this is even more dehumanising".
> ...yet seem to assume soldiers watching a drone video feed feel no different than playing a video game...
I never implied that in the slightest. My ire is primarily directed at the people making the system, which almost certainly are folks at higher ranks - not the average soldier. I fully understand humans are human(e).
> Especially in the beginning I forced myself to watch the videos, just so I wouldn't get lost in abstraction. The human suffering is gut wrenching. You can watch men getting shredded down; soldiers embracing each other in fear and helplessness moments before they're killed or maimed.
I have also watched many of these absolutely messed up videos; but I am absolutely not convinced that the e-points system reduces this suffering in any way. Psychological distance absolutely can make it "easier" to kill, and perhaps a man with a broken down tank was already effectively a "Hors de Combat" but if you shoot him you get 12 points, and...
...I think you see what I'm saying.
In my original comment, I had said
> this is way more similar to CoD or any other shooting game than it has ever been in human history, and by a significant amount.
I'm saying it's far closer to CoD. It's absolutely still fucked up, regardless of whether you're an operator or a family of someone on the frontline. But I'm not claiming it's identical to a game.
And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
I'm talking about "Shit, it's bad to dehumanise war even more".
Are you saying "No, that's a good thing if your country is under attack"?
Because if you're actually wanting to say "It's a fucked up situation for them", then, yeah, I agree... and I've never said anything to the contrary? Are we on the same page then, or not?
> The comparison to CoD in particular is so deeply egregious.
So you're saying this war isn't the closest we've been to a gamified war perhaps ever in human history?
If you're saying "we shouldn't be crying about gamification because there are more important things as their country's at stake", well, there are more humans dying of hunger every day than in Ukraine, so therefore the EU should put all its funds supporting Ukraine into reducing global hunger? By that logic??
Please, if you're a grown adult, have the nuance and the maturity to show it. Multiple things can be issues at the same time, and calling one out doesn't make the other justified - because that's what it feels like you're accusing me of. And please feel free to correct me if I've said anything wrong (or if you disagree with any of my options.)
> I think something fundamentally new is not only the incentivisation directly affecting kills - as a top team/unit can iterate up much faster, unlike a soldier who could boast more kills, but still have the same rifle as his colleagues - but the layers and desensitisation overall.
What does any of this mean? You think everyone in the military gets the same gear and capabilities and support? You think incentives don't exist in the military? You think rewards for units that are more lethal in war is a new phenomena? You don't think layers exist in the military to ensure that most people do not have to fight at the tip of the spear, and those that do get constant support from other elements? What are you talking about?
> Part of this probably admittedly isn't new, and likely started with drones, where you could kill someone in Iraq sitting in DC, on the other side of the world.
Oh ok so it's not new? But it "likely" started with American drone use in Iraq or something. Ok, explain to me how this started then? Why is the analogous situation? Because you see the word "drone" in the same sentence? Are you not aware much of human innovation around war is not putting yourself at risk when attacking an adversary? This is basically intuitive. Why did it start here instead of in the first conflict where tribes of men were beating each other to death with sticks before someone invented the sling or the arrow? Please tell me what version of combat you find most humanizing.
> But now with both, being separated from the physicality, and the incentives via points...
Um except they aren't separated from the physicality? It's people invading their own land? How can you make a claim about being separated physically or the "physicality" and from "incentives" and think pointing out their country is being invaded is a time to ask "And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?" What species of logic is this?
You: They are separated from the physicality and the incentives via points (the same way arguably in app currencies are used in gacha games[...]
Me: Well no, it's not really like that at all. I mean their country is being invaded. Their families are dying. Their friends are dying. They liberate towns and find dead civilians. They endure bombing on their own civilian infrastructure. How on Earth could that be separated from the "physicality and incentives" re warfare? How could you ever compare going through that to a video game?
You: And what does that have to do with anything I was talking about?
Um buddy have you been playing too many of these games? What are you talking about?
I'm sorry how close do you want them to get? Are all attacks from the air dehumanizing or gamified? At what range does the humanization kick in? It's "CoD" unless what the Ukrainian runs across the frontline with a club to bludgeon a Russian to death? How many drone videos have you watched? Is your claim a Ukrainian would be less likely to take the opportunity at a clear shot at a Russian via a rifle than with a drone? Because they would fear for their humanity? Do you know how humans about to be blown up by a drone act? Suddenly the Russian invader is not so aggressive. And how are they separated from the incentives? You mean the incentive of stopping an army from invading their land and ending their nation and having domination over their families? The "points" is a scrappy formalization of a system. You think a Ukrainian soldier needs "points" to want to defend his country? Gee if I wasn't about to get this CoD style achievement I'd probably just let him go?
> So you're saying this war isn't the closest we've been to a gamified war perhaps ever in human history?
Yes, of course I'm saying that. The closest we've come "gamification of war" is having to suffer people like you who clearly don't know anything, can't read their own writing, regurgitate other people's think pieces and talk about a conflict that you are separated from with clear casual indifference and frankly, ignorance. The Ukrainian story is a deeply human one of ingenuity and courage in the face of a stronger, dominating, existential adversary. Their drone program is a big part of this.
The rest of your reply is shallow nonsense ("world hunger", "grown adult", clear cheap rhetorical tricks - inventing an argument that was never made to justify your abysmally lazy takes) like mate, just read your own writing. You're comparing people being invaded to a CoD game. Your acting like an American operating a drone in Baghdad is somehow something like what's happening in Ukraine? Hello, Iraq was not invading the United States? If you're an American drone pilot your family is not being bombed or evacuated. The average American drone costs what, easily 100x more? If not double that? These are people slapping together consumer parts in dire circumstances so their country can be free. And you are just regurgitating this just deeply grating Western privilege style of frankly, uncritical blither about "gamification" and Obama era think pieces that only someone who has not seriously asked how their society would handle an existential invasion could manage. All while not being able to look in the mirror. You're the gamification. To the people in Ukraine, it's not a game. Everything about what they are doing re drones and and combat is consistent with their position in asymmetric, existential conflict. How is an American drone operator in any way related to that? Again because you saw the word "drone"? What else is similar? You think the American drone operator has the same disposition vis-a-vis his targets as a Ukrainian? Is that your claim? How could that possibly be the case? Which is more or less gamified? Let's hear it.
Why don't you actually attempt an answer to that question. I would love for you to actually defend any of this instead of inventing more straw men arguments. Let's see if you can actually defend a single sentence you put forward.
Or does it all boil down to a general indifference?
> I'm talking about "Shit, it's bad to dehumanise war even more".
Perhaps this theory of "gamification" appeals to you because it's simply the soup you swim in. Why don't you "act like an adult" and actually attempt a defense of your own words. Or concede you erred. Where is the "nuance and maturity"? I'm not seeing it. Explain the "multiple things at issue". Let's hear it, please. Are you going to defend your statements or is "shit war sucks" and an inapplicable recitation of other people's thoughts on gamification and drones really the best you can do?
Ps, if you're genuinely curious, I can share a link where I got Gemini 3.1 Pro (at max thinking) to analyse this chat as neutrally as I could. Seeing as Gemini had an easier time than you did, maybe it could give you some help?
I suspect it's primarily due to folks missing nuance/misinterpreting thing (and/or getting emotional and running off with it).
I ran a thread to analyse hidden/missed nuance - where I tried to be as "neutral" as possible (by never identifying myself), if someone's genuinely interested I can share the link. (Hint: Gemini 3.1 Pro at max thinking mode in AI Studio says others are missing a point/some nuance.)
What 'clear moral objection' did you make? You talk in cliches so it's hard to tell.
Is this much difference from a combat mission being written up and soldiers being promoted/awarded medals.
The point of this is to see who is successful and what drones/weapons are the most effective. With a limited budget and much larger enemy it comes down to kills per dollar.