|
| Thread: Is it a bird or plane...it's |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
posted February 23, 2015 01:03 AM |
|
|
That's only in purely survival-based campaigns, not with a modern UN model that can use interventionist armies to shut down conflict zones before a genocide even begins. There's a few wealthy nations that are still tepid over the idea because they associate it with imperialism, but they're on the losing side of history and the world is (and has been) inevitably moving more and more towards a multinational, rapid-response technological army. It's difficult to have such an army in place if it's just based on people that do a year or two of mandatory service and then move on in life. The logistics of it are no good.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 01:22 AM |
|
|
Well, you make it sound quite reasonable but I dont remember the UN military force or something similar with a significant battle power.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 03:18 AM |
|
|
No, but it's a catalyst that is used for cooperative interventionist actions, versus each power having a fully independent policy, and this cooperation has increased over the decades. In theory it can eventually evolve from that point into having a multinational reserve force, which I think is completely conceivable within the 21st century. I have a hard time picturing a multinational force not being a professional/career army.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 04:03 AM |
|
Edited by artu at 12:42, 23 Feb 2015.
|
Well, as dear Napoleon pointed out, what is war but money, money, money. When a solitary, international governing unit that pays for such a military force comes in play, we'll most probably have that, even if not in this century. As of now, you guys with your 600-something billion military budget seem to be quite alone on that hill.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 04:30 PM |
|
|
blizzardboy said:
Not entirely. I think it's a very fair argument to say that the more humanly detached warfare becomes (that is, pushing buttons from a distance and letting missiles and automatons do the work), the more dangerous it becomes in theory, because brutal as it may sound, the human price of war is a very empathetic, visceral deterrent from continuing in it.
Blizz I'd give you two QPS for this short paragraph. Seems everyone else is firmly rooted in it's has sooo much good, like remaining on a couch.
blizzardboy said:
Not that I'm holding my breath for the world not to further develop drone technology. That is inevitable and inescapable, and the technology will serve a vast multitude of positive functions, but the increased human detachment from military involvement is going to be one of the dragons to overcome in the 21st century.
When Man mentally evolved and proposed over centuries with greater and greater acceptance that it was AOK to make war on woman, children and the elders and gave it an official strategy called Total War and then decided it was AOK to kill from the air...review the outcome of the 20th century...the century of the most human <ahem> "progress" in history.
Orwell nailed the gist of the future but he couldn't see past Big Brother. Behind the infamous Bro was Big Sister, Elephantine Cousin, Gigantic Mom and Pop, Enormous Uncle, Huge Aunt and above all...Titan Stranger.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 17:02, 23 Feb 2015.
|
There is no other thing in history that has dehumanized humanity more than technology. Which is ultimately a product of humanity itself.
We're on a path to self destruction.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 05:23 PM |
|
|
What is technology?
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 23, 2015 05:30 PM |
|
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 24, 2015 09:29 PM |
|
|
markkur said:
When Man mentally evolved and proposed over centuries with greater and greater acceptance that it was AOK to make war on woman, children and the elders and gave it an official strategy called Total War and then decided it was AOK to kill from the air...review the outcome of the 20th century...the century of the most human <ahem> "progress" in history.
Technological progress is mainly a magnifier for both our productive and destructive sides, I mean, I remember as a traditional "mountain guy" you like hunting and think of it as an educating tradition. But if you just broaden your perspective, you can also see that even the simplest hunting technology meant the extinction of many species since men started throwing around spears. Will we also cause our own extinction? While it's needless to point out that humans will face extinction just like any other specie that passed along (that's quite like pointing out to be living is getting closer to death every day), I think technology will delay the incident many times before, even if it causes it in the very end. It probably saved vast majority of our ancestors through many famines and climate change already in the early stages.
Yes, modern warfare caused the civillian loss to be higher than ever before, but women and children were able to exist in millions because of technology itself in the first place. There are tribal people in certain corners of the world without the proper farming, storing and domestication technologies that spread around from Euroasia and their population is very very limited by default. One can romanticize that way of life for sure but I've never seen anyone who does that in practice and go live like the Gulohulu tribe of the Amazon, instead of on a computer with words.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 24, 2015 10:13 PM |
|
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 25, 2015 01:57 PM |
|
|
artu said:
...I mean, I remember as a traditional "mountain guy" you like hunting and think of it as an educating tradition. But if you just broaden your perspective, you can also see that even the simplest hunting technology meant the extinction of many species since men started throwing around spears.
Man yousa sucha stickla fer da fax.
Well, just to reveal my mental evolution about this topic has been sporadic but quite uniform.<L>
Yeah, I became near an expert with gun and bow. However, I turned out to be just like my American Indian ancestors; I only hunted for food. However, once I trained myself on Safety, "line-of-sight", Scents, concealment etc. and nabbed my 1st Buck, (also the Last) I only took a camera after that. You know, you can see a lot of cool stuff, if you are out in the woods when they wake."<L>
Anyway, bottom line I had cupboards full of food and knew I didn't have to kill anything...so I quit after mastering the skill for a time that I might need it.
Btw, a little brag; With a Bow I used to be able to put 6 arrows in an apple-sized target at 25-30 yards. But alas, Arthur Rightus hunted me down and said no more "draws." Hopefully my silly word humor is not too tedious for you. 
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 12:38 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 12:41, 27 Feb 2015.
|
artu said:
One can romanticize that way of life for sure but I've never seen anyone who does that in practice and go live like the Gulohulu tribe of the Amazon, instead of on a computer with words.
Sense is Romance eh? I don't recall any law that says Mankind must accept mass destruction as a way of life, whereas helpful techs should be a no brainer.
The root of the problem is always the moolah. "Why, we can't stop making killing stuff we'd be over-run tomorrow and besides, we'd lose all those good high paying jobs". Like they've paid attention to anything else outside of Government. <U.S.> Society values are a mess anyway. Look at how much a care-giver or teacher is paid compared to entertainment or sports. Yeah, we are thee Super-Power all right.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 12:51 PM |
|
|
I'm not opposing to oppose mass destruction, I' m opposing to directly link mass destruction to technology, therefore demonize technology and romanticise the "noble savage." That goes back to Jean Jacques Rousseau but I havent read about him traveling to wild forests and living in a shack either. 
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 01:02 PM |
|
Edited by markkur at 13:20, 27 Feb 2015.
|
artu said:
I'm not opposing to oppose mass destruction, I' m opposing to directly link mass destruction to technology, therefore demonize technology and romanticise the "noble savage." That goes back to Jean Jacques Rousseau but I havent read about him traveling to wild forests and living in a shack either.
Wow, that was weird, logged on and I didn't but the quote did.
Anyway it is from a philosophical stance, that I disagree with you. The "all or nothing" view is what most folks accept...if they are thinking about this stuff at all.
Granted I do not disagree that's how things are now however, <imo>if there IS ever to be Progress in the value of human life, than this first debate must be had or there will never, ever be hope for a practical application; let alone a reversal of the present trends of acceptance and endorsement.
Dude, you know Dreamers like me are important. They always have been and always will be.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 02:23 PM |
|
|
I am not the anti-dreamer, buddy. I just think technology itself isnt the issue here, as I said in my first post, it only magnifies OUR productive and destructive side. So, the dream should be about a better humanity instead of less technology. Dont get me wrong, on a personal basis, I prefer to be in a house surrounded by trees rather than machines. But I still want my internet in that house and when I do, it feels like a hypocrisy to trash technology like I dont enjoy its fruits.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 03:26 PM |
|
|
artu said:
So, the dream should be about a better humanity instead of less technology.
I agree with this. However I consider a better humanity to be one which does not desire technology, because technology in itself is a bad medium for humans. We are biological and we desire the biological, that's what I think it's our primordial state whether you believe in the garden of Eden or evolution.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 03:48 PM |
|
|
|
A humanity that does not desire technology? Seems quite unlikely.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 03:55 PM |
|
|
artu said:
...it feels like a hypocrisy to trash technology like I dont enjoy its fruits.
Good grief man and where did I say NO Tech? I Am trashing War Tech when it is remote-controlled, lethal and hovering over our heads. I've said nada about PCs.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 04:43 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 17:49, 27 Feb 2015.
|
Unfortunately, that's not how it works, Markkur. In a broader context, we dont discover this or that tool but rather, we discover new ways to arrange forces in nature and once we do that, we naturaly apply it to any field whether its medicine or communication or military (destruction). When we made the first optic lenses, it paved the road to millions of people with hindered eyesight using glasses, microscopes and cure for many diseases but one of the first things that came to their mind was to build a giant magnifier on the shore and burn enemy ships with it using sunlight. (I guess, that didnt work out for some reason, since the idea didnt catch on.)
Once you make an arrow (bow and arrow is a great tool for hunting and hunting was not a hobby but a necessity when the tool was invented), your soldiers will certainly equip it. Same with planes, they made travel faster and safer, now can you think of any ministry of defense who wont demand to use them once they are out there? Nuclear energy is a good thing overall, although there are some issues about security and pollution, they are solvable and it's cieaner than stuff like coal and efficient. But it also led to a generation constanly fearing the end of the world and atomic bomb apocalypse. I'm post Cold-War, I was 11 when the Berlin Wall fell, you are American and older, you lived through those times, would you suggest abandoning nuclear energy all together? We are 7 billion now and going higher. We need to find efficient and clean ways to produce energy or we will suffer greatly.
Edit: Btw, in case of such an extreme and exceptional example like nuclear weapons, they got rid of most of the weapons without abandoning the technology. We all thought that was wise. I dont see that happening with war planes or long range missles etc though. They are the inevitable by-product of our advance in knowledge and they will remain existing as long as there are wars.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted February 27, 2015 05:38 PM |
|
|
Drones are going to be awesome for domestic security or eventually transportation (self-piloted vehicles are, by definition, drones).
Maybe it's from too many science fictions movies and novels, but people get frightened when they think of the idea of these armies of drones having so much potential power over them. What they're afraid of isn't the drones, but the human powers behind the drones, and is that really so different now than it would be in the future? I mean, ultimately, your #1 protection from being abused and exploited is having a recognized, organized, humanitarian legal system in place that will prevent any tools to be used in harmful ways against you. Your safety isn't going to come from owning a weapon, or living in a cave in a mountain, or throwing bottlenecks on huge fields of application science. Those are all paltry defenses compared to building a good government and a good society. That is because building a good government and society is an offensive weapon. i.e. you are creating conditions that prevent abuses from occuring in the first place. Those other things are all defensive weapons that are used to attempt to save you once an abuse has already happened, which is why they make such a poor defense. They're not preventive medicine. They're reactionary.
Technically, bottlenecking technology is preventive, but only if you can get the entire world to abide by it. Otherwise you just end up living in a country that is less equipped than other countries. I do believe that bottlenecking very specific application sciences can be wise. i.e. no, you're not getting $15 billion in government funding in order to develop weaponized zombie butterflies that carry anti-biotic resistant bubonic plague. A barbarian that is good at math is still a barbarian. But you have to be careful with how you use that, because the vast majority of R&D has multiple ways in which it can be used.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
| |
|
|
