Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[amorphos_ii]

Will tech surpass war?

We could build ultra-high velocity rail cannon, and then have the ability to shoot anything, anywhere, down. However, one would probably end up with a load of projectiles in orbit ~ which would pretty much end the space race. Just a local war like the recent one at Gaza, would yield millions of projectiles. This suggests to me that war is being planned, at least in terms of what is used. For example; Israel could be impenetrable with such weapons, and Trumps riviera planes for Gaza, could actually work.

So anyway, what will the warmongers do when war does not yield power? When the weapons, cybertech and AI are themselves too powerful to contemplate usage. Similar to say nukes, biological weapons, neurotoxin bombs, or any WMD.

Will there be a weapon to end all wars?

Or would ‘IT’ or they, just get used locally or under some unspoken agreement?

What are the chances; that for the whole future of mankind, we wont hit the button?

Funny, because we have all seen the sci-fi films, and yet things are happening now, similar to how it goes in the film, even though, we have seen the film!

[Pattern-chaser]

Will tech surpass war?

[...]

Will there be a weapon to end all wars?

It is my thought that war *enables* tech, just as tech enables war. They are indivisible complements, it seems? And our human history indicates that if we have a weapon, however terrible, and whatever the consequences of its use, we will use it.

Nuclear weapons, weapons that could literally crack the world? We used them at the first opportunity. Nerve poisons? Likewise. Putin's thugs use them regularly, across the world. And so on.

[Good_Egg]

Will there be a weapon to end all wars?

Why do wars start ?
Maybe there are 4 reasons:
a) wars of greed - wars over resources - e.g. wars to control oil supplies or for lebensraum
b) wars of paranoia- wars of pre-emptive defence
c) humanitarian wars - where one nation is treating its people so badly that another nation feels they cannot morally stand by and do nothing, and thus they attempt to bring about "regime change"
d) war for war's sake - where a nation finds an excuse to make war but the real reason is its internal politics - e.g. to distract the population from internal mismanagement or because the military-industrial complex has gained control of the levers of power.

A sci-fi weapon could conceivably be so cheap and powerful as to eliminate wars of type a) - wars of greed - by making territorial expansion unprofitable.

But the more cheap and powerful the weapon, the greater the scope for the other types of war - pre-emptive, humanitarian, and internally-motivated.

I'm a little surprised that the sci-fi literature hasn't clarified this enough.

(For what it's worth, I see the current wars in Ukraine and Gaza as being primarily pre-emptive. As driven by Russian and Israeli perceptions that their security is at stake if they do not prevent the development of an armed and hostile state on their border. That's not a justification; it's a categorisation of motive).

A world in which everyone is armed with super-weapons is not a safe and peaceful world.

[Pattern-chaser]

Why do wars start ?
Maybe there are 4 reasons:
a) wars of greed - wars over resources - e.g. wars to control oil supplies or for lebensraum
b) wars of paranoia- wars of pre-emptive defence
c) humanitarian wars - where one nation is treating its people so badly that another nation feels they cannot morally stand by and do nothing, and thus they attempt to bring about "regime change"
d) war for war's sake - where a nation finds an excuse to make war but the real reason is its internal politics - e.g. to distract the population from internal mismanagement or because the military-industrial complex has gained control of the levers of power.

I've always found it useful to consider why the combatants *say* they're fighting. It isn't always the true reason, of course. When we look at it like that, we often find that wars are about land (and the resources the land offers), and the possession of that land. [The current Middle East conflict is a good example.]

Observation seems to show that wars are rarely, if ever, fought over religion, although it may seem so, and the combatants may claim it is so. Such claims are often propaganda, to cover up the real reason for fighting, which might be the wish to deprive their opponents of land and resources, e.g. oil. This is your war on greed, I think?

Apart from land, and land-theft, I can't see any other clear options. Although there are several possible contributors, and I think it is these that you list?

[chewybrian]

I think tech will inevitably be the end of civilization as we think we know it or wish it could be. Ever smaller groups of people will be able to cause ever greater destruction with ever fewer resources. So, we face a choice of giving our rights away in the hopes that someone like Trump will protect us, or facing danger all the time. Either way, we lose.

I think we are only at the very beginning of this dilemma. Think what drones will be able to do with AI tech in the future. You won't be able to protect something like a presidential inauguration or the Super Bowl. I don't see any way out of this trap. We may be some of the last people in history to be able to go outside without fear. Life is on a fast track to become a bad 80's action movie.

Talk me out of this opinion. please, if you can. Tell me how people are naturally good and kind. I really do believe most people are. Yet, technology allows a few selfish, soulless people to force the rest of us to hide, submit or fight back.

[Pattern-chaser]

Talk me out of this opinion. please, if you can. Tell me how people are naturally good and kind. I really do believe most people are. Yet, technology allows a few selfish, soulless people to force the rest of us to hide, submit or fight back.

I'd love to talk you out of it, but I'm not sure it's possible. Like you, I yearn to believe nice stuff about people, but empirical evidence is conspiring against us, I think?

[Good_Egg]

Apart from land, and land-theft, I can't see any other clear options.

I agree with you that mixed motives are entirely possible, and that governments lie about their real reasons to make themselves look better.

But the above quoted statement is just blinkered. Greed / territorial acquisition is not always the dominant motive.

Russia's primary aim in Ukraine is preventing it joining NATO, which would mean US military bases on Ukrainian soil, which the Russians see as a huge threat to their security.

Israel's primary aim in Gaza is to stop Hamas attacks on Israel.

These are not wars of territorial acquisition; they are wars of pre-emptive defence.

(You could say wars of paranoia, except that it's not paranoia if they really are out to get you...)

[Pattern-chaser]

Apart from land, and land-theft, I can't see any other clear options.

I agree with you that mixed motives are entirely possible, and that governments lie about their real reasons to make themselves look better.

But the above quoted statement is just blinkered. Greed / territorial acquisition is not always the dominant motive.

Agreed. That's why I took the trouble to use words like "often" in what I said.

Russia's primary aim in Ukraine is preventing it joining NATO, which would mean US military bases on Ukrainian soil, which the Russians see as a huge threat to their security.

Win or lose, Russia ends up with a NATO country as an immediate neighbour. That seems to defuse your argument, I think?

Israel's primary aim in Gaza is to stop Hamas attacks on Israel.

Israel's aim in Gaza seems to be possession. Everything they have done, and statements made by Israeli officials and private individuals, seems to say so. Israel is at war to gain the Middle East as their Very Own, or so it seems. Land-grab.

...

That, and the genocide of the indigenous population of Palestine.

[amorphos_ii]

The man has had the ability to end the world for a long time, and in fact I would be comforted if I thought everything was and is being planned out. Certainly does not look to be in the favour of Islam these days. Why would a nation allow itself to be beaten down or otherwise concede, if there were agreements?
Perhaps that we are all humans, and there is no profit in mass destruction, where poisoned or nuked lands would be uninhabitable for 20,000 years or more. It will never happen.

Perhaps the west sees this time we are living in, as the best chance to get things done? i.e. before unfriendly nations have nukes and neurotoxins. I mean, they can and do attend the same collages as us!

A world in which everyone is armed with super-weapons is not a safe and peaceful world.

Indeed, that means such weapons have to be heavily moderated. AI cameras on every house will help, along with powerful tech in the weapons themselves. e.g. if a bear attacks you, you can shoot it – let us say, if you try to shoot any human, your gun wont fire, that sort of thing and figured out properly.

The key to our future in that respect is everything capitalism hates – interference. Big brother covers it I think lol