Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by psyreporter »

I just read the following comment on an article about AI drones:
Very well, let's talk about how drones are being used "in the real world" in the current wars. The UN has not authorized US military action anywhere. The Congress has not declared war. They are not wars of self-defense. So the wars against al Qaeda, ISIS, and whoever else the president thinks is an enemy are illegal. Therefore, any killings of anybody by US drones in the Middle East or anywhere else are murders. Debates about whether drones are morally preferable to bombings are irrelevant in the current circumstances (sure, they are morally preferable to using nuclear weapons or carpet bombing; so what?). The President of the United States, therefore, has committed the ultimate international crime, aggression, the same crime for which Nazis were convicted. Unless you think the President is above the law, as Nixon decreed, you cannot avoid the conclusion that Barack Obama, the President of Drone Warfare, is a serial killer.
Of course, this is unthinkable and unsayable in polite company and in the mainstream media. As philosophers, however, we can think it, we can say it, and we are right.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/eth ... ne-warfare (The Ethics of Drone Warfare)
(2021) 'Murderbot' Is Not Your Typical AI
https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2021/05 ... rtha-wells

(2021) The Pentagon Inches Toward Letting AI Control Weapons
Lethal autonomous weapons cheap enough that every terrorist can afford them are not in America's national security interest,” says Max Tegmark, a professor at MIT and cofounder of the Future of Life Institute, a nonprofit that opposes autonomous weapons.

Tegmark says AI weapons should be “stigmatized and banned like biological weapons.” The NSCAI report's opposition a global ban is a strategic mistake, he says: “I think we'll one day regret it even more than we regret having armed the Taliban.
https://www.wired.com/story/pentagon-in ... l-weapons/

--

I once read an article on Scientific American in which scientists argued that many terrorists are driven by factors such as the necessity to fight for water, and that instead of war, an alternative option could be to provide solutions to countries, to create friendships.

The potential validity of this idea is visible in recent articles on water crisis:

(2020) Water Crisis, A Bigger Threat Than Terrorism
https://dailytimes.com.pk/666539/water- ... terrorism/

(2019) Water Wars: How Scarcity Exacerbates Conflict
“Providing these needs will have a great effect on people, and will make them sympathize with us and feel that their fate is tied to ours.”
https://theowp.org/water-wars-how-scarc ... -conflict/

This may indicate that there are alternatives to warfare.

Another comment on PhilosophyTalk.org:
There is no greater example of mental weakness than the idea that military technology and might is the solution to war. It is this very weakness that fuels our wars. Violence begets violence and nothing more.
As it appears, innocent people including children are being targeted.

Killing children to retaliate

As for the killing of “enemy” children, President Obama justified the murder of 16-year-old American Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in Yemen in October 2011, two weeks after the assassination of his father, the Yemeni-American preacher Anwar al-Awlaki. In one of Donald Trump’s first acts as president, he authorized a U.S. special operations attack that killed Abdulrahman’s 8-year old sister Nawar and other family members in January 2017 – after Trump, on the campaign trail, had vowed to kill the families of suspected terrorists.

Retaliation, and especially by means of killing children, would seem like an emotional act rather than a reasonable act. Would it be possible that such an act would serve to prevent terrorism? Are relatives of the killed children less motivated to perform terrorism?

Motive for terrorism: self-defense (violence begets violence)

Researchers have interviewed people who have joined armed resistance groups in countries across the world to ask them about what drove them to join an armed group and take part in guerrilla warfare or terrorism. In 2015, the Center for Civilians in Conflict published the results of interviews with 250 people who joined armed groups in Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya in a report titled, The People’s Perspective: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict. One of its main findings was that, “The most common motivation for involvement, described by interviewees in all four case studies, was the protection of self or family.”

If most of the people fighting U.S. forces and their allies across the world, from Niger to Ukraine to the Philippines, are just trying to defend themselves and their families against our “counterterrorism” operations, that turns the whole basis of the U.S. “war on terror” on its head. The most effective way to reduce violence and terrorism would obviously be to stop putting them in such an intolerable position in the first place.

Across the world, it is obvious, and now well-documented, that U.S. aggression and militarism are causing the very problems they claim to be trying to solve.


(2017) America’s Renegade Warfare Killing Civilians, Violating Law
https://popularresistance.org/americas- ... ating-law/

What would happen when AI would be used to perform killing, for an idea, to retaliate or for ethnic cleansing?

As it appears, ethnic cleansing is a practice for which AI drones could potentially be used.

U.S. and allied forces in Iraq have killed at least 10-15 percent of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs and displaced about half of them. Sunni Arabs have been relentlessly targeted for detention, torture and summary execution since 2004. This ethnic cleansing campaign has continued under the U.S-backed Shiite government and has kept driving Sunni Arab Iraqis into armed resistance groups, creating pretexts for endless violence against them.

--

What is your opinion on AI warfare?
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by psyreporter »

According to philosopher Bertrand Russell ethical philosophy offers little more than self-serving argument to justify violence, which is essentially war between people. He developed a disgust of all ethical claims.

(2020) The politics of logic - Philosophy at war: nationalism and logical analysis
https://aeon.co/essays/philosophy-at-wa ... l-analysis
Russell told one colleague that the talk (On Scientific Method in Philosophy, Oxford) ‘was partly inspired by disgust at the universal outburst of “righteousness” in all nations since the war began. It seems the essence of virtue is persecution, and it has given me a disgust of all ethical notions.
...
In private, Russell referred to the essay as ‘Philosophers and Pigs’.
...
Russell’s antiwar protest was so extensive that it would cost him both his job and, for a time, his personal freedom. His theoretical antidote to the irrational, sectarian vitriol between European nations was to try to show how logic could function as an international language that could be used impartially and dispassionately to adjudicate disputes. His theoretical antidote was, in other words, analytic philosophy.

‘The truth, whatever it may be, is the same in England, France, and Germany … it is in its essence neutral’
I noticed that several philosophers hold the view that humans are naturally inclined to a state of war. For example, philosopher William James mentioned the following in his work on pacifism (‘Remarks at the Peace Banquet’ and ‘The Moral Equivalent of War’):
The plain truth is that people want war. They want it anyhow; for itself; and apart from each and every possible consequence. It is the final bouquet of life’s fireworks. The born soldiers want it hot and actual. The non-combatants want it in the background, and always as an open possibility, to feed imagination on and keep excitement going.
One wonders, why would otherwise be possible, as can be seen in the moral theory/vision developed by many of the philosophers who held such a view (including William James, one of the founders of pacifism)? Why would one intend to 'strive against nature' and formulate a moral theory that prevents war?

From my perspective, war isn't a natural state for which one is ought to settle as if it is a natural tendency or inclination. It may be a lack of intelligence and fear (darkness) that makes one incline to such a state of violence. Of course there is politics and ideology, and the strive to overcome others. But as Bertrand Russel has shown, there is a 'truth' that is essentially neutral for anyone.

A Dutch saying is "What you don't know, doesn't bother you". It means that when you don't know something, you cannot consider it reasonably. It implies that there is potential for darkness and fear by 'not knowing' and not being able to reason.

Philosopher Henry David Thoreau once said the following about the enhancement of human ethical practice in general:

"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."

It appears that he was right. Millennials (Gen Y) have been driving a global shift away from eating animals, to serve ethical considerations, and Gen Z is accelerating that shift to veganism.

(2018) Millennials Are Driving The Worldwide Shift Away From Meat
A global reduction in meat consumption between 2016 and 2050 could save up to eight million lives per year and $31 trillion in reduced costs from health care and climate change. (National Academy of Sciences).
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelpel ... from-meat/

The origin of the violence or 'state of war' against animals appeared to have been a lack of (potential for) reason (ethical consideration) and not a 'natural tendency'.

It may be a sign of higher intelligence when the human shows potential for ethical consideration on behalf of, or empathy for, animals. As such, it can be demanded on behalf of human dignity. A lack of care or ethical consideration can become unjust when the potential for it (in an individual) can be made evident.

An example may be found in the emergence of the field animal ethics of philosophy, and its effects on how humans in general (culturally) perceive and interact with animals.

Animal minds have long been considered a "black box" by science. It wasn't given attention and thus people in general didn't know anything about it and cannot understand a problem with treating animals in a specific way (i.e. without respect).

(2019) Animal Ethics: an important emerging topic for society
Another reason for scientists to engage with the philosophy of animal ethics is that it might help them confront topics that have been traditionally off-limits: in particular, the notion of animal minds. While minds are difficult enough to talk about in humans, this difficulty is exacerbated when it comes to non-human animals.

... animal minds and consciousness have been consigned to a “black box”, an entity too complex or confusing to delve into, but whose inputs and outputs become the object of study.
https://cosmosmagazine.com/society/anim ... and-ethics

Animal ethics evolves on the basis of advancements in intelligence and empathy. It could be an argument that humans should choose wisely when they have the capacity to do so. A greater capacity in intelligence and empathy for animals comes with new responsibilities, and as such, the human being naturally evolves culturally into a state of less violence towards animals.

A lack of potential for ethical consideration (reason) appears to be the origin of the supposed inclination to a 'state of war', and ethically, there can be no justification for acts that originate from a lack of reason. One can hide behind error, but error should not be the intended result.

The potential for ethical consideration (reason) in an individual can become a requirement or responsibility. As such, the human has a potential to enhance itself ethically and to overcome darkness before it was ever present, with intelligence (reason).

There is certainly a fight or war in the sense of 'a striving to achieve results by any means and as fast as possible', but the goal should be guided by reason (intelligence) for it to serve life optimally. For example, when an asteroid is on a path towards earth, perhaps all people on earth will gladly work together to prevent the impact. Perhaps there are even bigger goals that require all people to have started yesterday, and from that perspective, each small step in the right direction matters!
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Pattern-chaser »

arjand wrote: May 20th, 2021, 11:37 am What is your opinion on AI warfare?
All warfare is repellent. All developments in the 'art' of warfare involve killing others more simply or easily, or perhaps in greater numbers. AI warfare is surely just another such development? I don't dismiss it because of that, I only observe that any 'progress' in warfare is probably unwelcome to civilised people.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Robert66 »

arjand wrote: May 20th, 2021, 11:37 am
The UN has not authorized US military action anywhere. The Congress has not declared war. They are not wars of self-defense. So the wars against al Qaeda, ISIS, and whoever else the president thinks is an enemy are illegal. Therefore, any killings of anybody by US drones in the Middle East or anywhere else are murders. Debates about whether drones are morally preferable to bombings are irrelevant ... Barack Obama, the President of Drone Warfare, is a serial killer.

https://www.philosophytalk.org/blog/eth ... ne-warfare (The Ethics of Drone Warfare)
instead of war, an alternative option could be to provide solutions to countries, to create friendships.

U.S. aggression and militarism are causing the very problems they claim to be trying to solve.[/i]

What is your opinion on AI warfare?
If a war is worth fighting, then the UN would be able to authorise it, and then a leader would have an argument to put to their people, to convince them that sending flesh and blood to fight that war is justified. Sending drones is the act of a coward. If Obama or any POTUS claims the authority to make unauthorised war, then surely they also have good arguments to make diplomatically. Making war rather than friendships can be seen as being economically motivated, not morally justified, and it is only an imbalance of power which allows it to happen again and again. But that power will diminish at an even greater rate as the US continues to create enemies.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by psyreporter »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:56 pm
arjand wrote: May 20th, 2021, 11:37 am What is your opinion on AI warfare?
All warfare is repellent. All developments in the 'art' of warfare involve killing others more simply or easily, or perhaps in greater numbers. AI warfare is surely just another such development? I don't dismiss it because of that, I only observe that any 'progress' in warfare is probably unwelcome to civilised people.
Another quote from PhilosophyTalk.org:

A fully mechanized war? The prospect is certainly chilling, especially as adversaries develop the same technology. But maybe this is a reason to question the future of war rather than the current conduct of it. For reasons that have nothing to do with the technology of warfare, war is becoming obsolete. Not only are we too interdependent, but, because of communications, not war, technology we simply know each other too well. It's like the farm animal that has been given a name, you cannot then kill it for food. This is not a technological advancement, it's a human one.

Would you share his perspective?

Another reply:

The strongest force is the force that walks the other Way.
To peace,


Being prepared for anything is important when it concerns security as a flaw cannot be permitted. From that perspective, high priority advancement in war technologies may be important.

With modern technologies, preparedness may also be possible with scenario planning, war games, simulation and imagination. When earth works together on the subject 'security' (earth-space security), advancement may go much faster while the weapons would not be used on people.

Project Evergreen and Long View of the U.S. Coast Guard may be an example.

Learning from the future
Long View and Evergreen weren’t designed to bring about a wholesale organizational shift from the operational to the strategic or to train the Coast Guard’s attention primarily on the long term. Instead, the goal was to get its personnel thinking about the future in novel ways that improves their ability to operate in the present. Management scholars have long noted that, in order to survive and thrive over time, organizations need to both exploit existing competencies and explore new ones. They need to be “ambidextrous.”

Humans tend to conceive of time as linear and unidirectional, as moving from past to present to future, with each time frame discrete. We remember yesterday; we experience today; we anticipate tomorrow. But the best scenario planning embraces a decidedly nonlinear conception of time. That’s what Long View and Evergreen did: They took stock of trends in the present, jumped many years into the future, described plausible worlds created by those drivers, worked backward to develop stories about how those worlds had come to pass, and then worked forward again to develop robust strategies.

https://hbr.org/2020/07/learning-from-the-future

https://www.uscg.mil/Portals/0/Strategy ... 20Book.pdf
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Steve3007 »

Robert66 wrote:If a war is worth fighting, then the UN would be able to authorise it, and then a leader would have an argument to put to their people, to convince them that sending flesh and blood to fight that war is justified. Sending drones is the act of a coward.
Once the decision has been made that, for whatever reason, some kind of act of physical destruction (act of war) is required, what's wrong with sending an unmanned drone to do it? Saying that, in itself, is the act of a coward seems a bit like saying it's cowardly to send a robot instead of a human to disable or destroy a bomb. Or, if sending a human, it's cowardly to dress that human in protective equipment.

Would your argument be that in order to try to ensure restraint and care there must be some personal danger involved? There's a related argument about car safety. The more safety features we build into cars the more recklessly people feel that they can drive. There is therefore an argument that cars should all be build with a sharp blade sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver's body. It seems likely that we'd then drive more carefully, anticipate dangers better and brake more gently.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Steve3007 »

I think the idea that it's somehow cowardly to try to give oneself an advantage in battle has a long history in warfare. The image that immediately springs to mind is the cowboy in a western movie who, seeing that his enemy is out of ammunition, throws his own loaded gun to one side and puts up his fists. The mark of the real bad guy is that he either doesn't do that or, worse, uses some kind of deception, like pulling out a hidden gun once the main weapons have been thrown away.

The question of whether we still consider it cowardly depends on what we think war is for. There's a relatively modern tendency to think that it's a last resort once all efforts at peaceful negotiation have failed, or that it has a kind of utilitarian, preventative purpose of stopping even greater bloodshed. But traditionally it's been much more blatantly about the concept of honour. Hence the application of concepts like cowardice, fairness, the Marquess of Queensberry rules and so on.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Pattern-chaser »

arjand wrote: May 20th, 2021, 11:37 am What is your opinion on AI warfare?
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 21st, 2021, 2:56 pm All warfare is repellent. All developments in the 'art' of warfare involve killing others more simply or easily, or perhaps in greater numbers. AI warfare is surely just another such development? I don't dismiss it because of that, I only observe that any 'progress' in warfare is probably unwelcome to civilised people.
arjand wrote: May 25th, 2021, 9:04 pm Another quote from PhilosophyTalk.org:

A fully mechanized war? The prospect is certainly chilling, especially as adversaries develop the same technology. But maybe this is a reason to question the future of war rather than the current conduct of it. For reasons that have nothing to do with the technology of warfare, war is becoming obsolete. Not only are we too interdependent, but, because of communications, not war, technology we simply know each other too well. It's like the farm animal that has been given a name, you cannot then kill it for food. This is not a technological advancement, it's a human one.

Would you share his perspective?
No, not really. I don't argue with what he said, but I would question his conclusion, that war is (becoming) obsolete. On the contrary, war is as popular with humans as it has ever been, just not in the forms it has traditionally taken. War these days is more about chemical or biological war*, or most recently, cyber-war. The latter is so new that even the 'news' media don't recognise it as such, seeming to see it as some form of mischief that 12-year-old 'hackers' get up to in their bedrooms. It isn't. Russia are making cyber-war on many countries at the moment, and no-one has noticed their declaration of war for what it is. Puzzling.


* - In saying this, I neglect the area where traditional warfare still thrives. Explosive military weapons are often used against unarmed civilians; missiles against thrown rocks. Yemen is one example, and Palestine is another. I believe there are quite a few such conflicts going on currently, around the world.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by LuckyR »

It is true that in the west, most violence is economic, thus traditional warfare is not the correct counter to aggression. However there are areas where old school agression still occurs, thus traditional warfare could be the correct response.
"As usual... it depends."
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Robert66 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 26th, 2021, 10:03 am
Robert66 wrote:If a war is worth fighting, then the UN would be able to authorise it, and then a leader would have an argument to put to their people, to convince them that sending flesh and blood to fight that war is justified. Sending drones is the act of a coward.
Once the decision has been made that, for whatever reason, some kind of act of physical destruction (act of war) is required, what's wrong with sending an unmanned drone to do it? Saying that, in itself, is the act of a coward seems a bit like saying it's cowardly to send a robot instead of a human to disable or destroy a bomb. Or, if sending a human, it's cowardly to dress that human in protective equipment.

Would your argument be that in order to try to ensure restraint and care there must be some personal danger involved? There's a related argument about car safety. The more safety features we build into cars the more recklessly people feel that they can drive. There is therefore an argument that cars should all be build with a sharp blade sticking out of the steering wheel towards the driver's body. It seems likely that we'd then drive more carefully, anticipate dangers better and brake more gently.
Yes my argument is 'that in order to try to ensure restraint and care there must be some personal danger involved'.

Think about the bomb you refer to. Why is that bomb there? Because of asymetric warfare - the kind of warfare humanity has suffered since warmongers in positions of leadership started behaving like cowards. Now every group with a grievance understands that a war need not be just, that war is merely an exercise of power. If you are relatively powerless, then use your imagination, and do whatever it takes, like hijacking planes. Get yourselves a bigger slice of power, like Hamas who can now build rockets, and fire away with impunity - be more like the US. And the situation gets further out of control. Netanyahu returns fire 100-, or 1000-fold, destroying hospitals and media headquarters. The whole world now suffers because of these power plays. That is what is wrong with sending drones.

The car safety argument is not related. Personal danger is already involved in driving a car, and that is why most drivers do exercise great care when driving. Only a very small percentage of people drive more recklessly due to the safety features in their car. And only a very few individuals are actively trying to kill others when driving.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Steve3007 »

Robert66 wrote:Think about the bomb you refer to. Why is that bomb there? Because of asymetric warfare - the kind of warfare humanity has suffered since warmongers in positions of leadership started behaving like cowards. Now every group with a grievance understands that a war need not be just, that war is merely an exercise of power. If you are relatively powerless, then use your imagination, and do whatever it takes, like hijacking planes. Get yourselves a bigger slice of power, like Hamas who can now build rockets, and fire away with impunity - be more like the US. And the situation gets further out of control. Netanyahu returns fire 100-, or 1000-fold, destroying hospitals and media headquarters. The whole world now suffers because of these power plays. That is what is wrong with sending drones.
If we measure the badness of war by the total number of causalities, asymmetric warfare isn't necessarily worse. It's only unambiguously worse if we have this notion of fair play that I mentioned in my earlier post. As an example of a more symmetrical war, take World War I. Key features of that war were stalemate, trench warfare and million upon millions killed. That's one the potential problems with symmetry. It can result in huge and continued bloodshed. For sure, as you say, in asymmetrical warfare the "David" tries to find novel ways to get back at the "Goliath". But in terms of actual casualties that doesn't necessarily result in a worse outcome than symmetry does.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by Robert66 »

Steve3007 wrote: May 27th, 2021, 7:48 am If we measure the badness of war by the total number of causalities, asymmetric warfare isn't necessarily worse. It's only unambiguously worse if we have this notion of fair play that I mentioned in my earlier post. As an example of a more symmetrical war, take World War I. Key features of that war were stalemate, trench warfare and million upon millions killed. That's one the potential problems with symmetry. It can result in huge and continued bloodshed. For sure, as you say, in asymmetrical warfare the "David" tries to find novel ways to get back at the "Goliath". But in terms of actual casualties that doesn't necessarily result in a worse outcome than symmetry does.
I do 'have this notion of fair play'. We are discussing the ethics of AI warfare.

The World Wars did result in huge bloodshed, true, and we learnt a huge lesson from them as a result. However they did not continue, they ended.

Now we have forgotten the lesson, and we ignore the notion of fair play, and as a result we have continual, asymmetric warfare. This is a worse outcome in terms of actual casualties, economic implications, and ruined or displaced lives.
User avatar
psyreporter
Posts: 1022
Joined: August 15th, 2019, 7:42 pm
Contact:

Re: Killing children to retaliate + the ethics of AI warfare

Post by psyreporter »

Iran is facing an extreme water crisis and scientists predict that the situation could escalate.

Iran's groundwater depletion is reaching crisis levels, warn researchers
The researchers write that mismanagement by the country's authorities is exacerbating existing strains on the semi-arid country's aquifers by an inefficient agriculture industry. Without urgent action, they note, the country faces multiple national crises.
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-iran-grou ... risis.html

I once hiked with someone who hiked in Iran and he mentioned that the people in Iran are very friendly and welcoming.

Iranian People: Are They Really As Nice As Travellers Say?
https://www.goatsontheroad.com/iranian- ... eople-say/

iran.jpeg

Iran is one of the most beautiful countries globally with 140 unique wetlands with an area of more than 3 million hectares. Out of 42 types of wetlands known in the world, Iran has 41 types. Still, this microclimate and spectacular natural range is being damaged due to recklessness and is the victim of [the regime’s] economic interests,”."

Iran's water problem appears to be caused in part by foreign politics.

Iran’s ability to deal with the water crisis is linked to its foreign policy challenges. The country’s deteriorating water crisis is not just the result of persistent droughts in recent years,”.

(2021) Water wars on the horizon in Iran
https://asiatimes.com/2021/05/water-war ... n-in-iran/

Extreme water scarcity and wide disparities in public water supplies are potent ingredients for conflict. Jordan's water situation—long deemed a crisis—is now on the brink of "boiling over" into instability, said lead study author Jim Yoon, a water security and resilience scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
https://phys.org/news/2021-03-reveals-d ... ordan.html

There are new technologies that can extract water from air without energy-costs and some of them are usable in the desert.

(2021) This Dual-Use Tech Extracts Water from Air
https://i-hls.com/archives/108886

(2021) New material could harvest water all day long
https://phys.org/news/2021-05-material-harvest-day.html

(2018) Drinking water sucked from the dusty desert air
https://phys.org/news/2018-11-dusty-air.html

The war in Iraq has cost $1.1 trillion USD.

With an investment of $100 billion USD it may be possible to provide water solutions that can prevent wars.
PsyReporter.com | “If life were to be good as it was, there would be no reason to exist.”
Post Reply

Return to “Ethics and Morality”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021