Ask HN: What do you think of humankind’s ever-growing military capabilities?
11 comments
We are just developing our "global civilizational immune system". Life is dangerous for humans. We can die many ways. How can we become safer?
Assume people everywhere are good, just like body tissues, but sometimes, like disease, people or a group of people "turn bad" for "no reason". The bad things, like diseases, have ways to attack the good tissues. The good things, healthy tissues, need ways to fight back against the diseases, the ways being the immune system, which needs to develop "bad ways" to get rid of the "bad tissues".
There will always be random bad things happening in the body, "for no reason", cosmic rays, aged-related decline. Immune system needs ways to get rid of bad stuff. So the immune system has to develop "bad ways" to overpower and get rid of the "bad stuff", to protect the "good stuff", the healthy tissues.
That's like society, and humanity as a whole.
Does that mean that the diseases won't steal (horizontal gene transfer, independently evolve) the same "bad ways" the immune system uses to protect the good? No. But that happens. If immune system said, "No, we can no longer protect the good tissues because our weapons against the bad may fall into the wrong hands," obviously the body would die.
It's because of our advances that many humans find "war" to be this strange, foreign, nonsensical thing. Precisely because we have been able to craft "citadels of peace", can people have this "post-urban" perspective that separates the "means of peace production" from the daily experience of people. This perspective is a historical anomaly. Everything we have today is built on a deep foundation of blood and death, which in the past, was a lot more "in the face" of everyday people.
The only accurate, historical conclusion is that weaponry and war have been a necessary and ever present part of our development.
I think one day "human global village" will evolve to where we don't want to fight or kill each other anymore. But, then, we will encounter "hostile alien species", and we will need weapons to protect us from them. Unfortunately the need for weapons and defenses is ever present.
War is just a fact of civilization, the contemporary surprise with which is a testament to how successful we have been at building civilizations that can let people feel a sense of peace. That success is based, in part, on weaponry and war.
One success of civilization is how peaceful it can become, but a major means of civilization is, war and weaponry.
Assume people everywhere are good, just like body tissues, but sometimes, like disease, people or a group of people "turn bad" for "no reason". The bad things, like diseases, have ways to attack the good tissues. The good things, healthy tissues, need ways to fight back against the diseases, the ways being the immune system, which needs to develop "bad ways" to get rid of the "bad tissues".
There will always be random bad things happening in the body, "for no reason", cosmic rays, aged-related decline. Immune system needs ways to get rid of bad stuff. So the immune system has to develop "bad ways" to overpower and get rid of the "bad stuff", to protect the "good stuff", the healthy tissues.
That's like society, and humanity as a whole.
Does that mean that the diseases won't steal (horizontal gene transfer, independently evolve) the same "bad ways" the immune system uses to protect the good? No. But that happens. If immune system said, "No, we can no longer protect the good tissues because our weapons against the bad may fall into the wrong hands," obviously the body would die.
It's because of our advances that many humans find "war" to be this strange, foreign, nonsensical thing. Precisely because we have been able to craft "citadels of peace", can people have this "post-urban" perspective that separates the "means of peace production" from the daily experience of people. This perspective is a historical anomaly. Everything we have today is built on a deep foundation of blood and death, which in the past, was a lot more "in the face" of everyday people.
The only accurate, historical conclusion is that weaponry and war have been a necessary and ever present part of our development.
I think one day "human global village" will evolve to where we don't want to fight or kill each other anymore. But, then, we will encounter "hostile alien species", and we will need weapons to protect us from them. Unfortunately the need for weapons and defenses is ever present.
War is just a fact of civilization, the contemporary surprise with which is a testament to how successful we have been at building civilizations that can let people feel a sense of peace. That success is based, in part, on weaponry and war.
One success of civilization is how peaceful it can become, but a major means of civilization is, war and weaponry.
Thanks for this optimistic viewpoint. Much appreciated!
This was beautiful.
This happens because people don't trust each other. I don't mean just regular people, but humanity in general is not so trusting of those outside the tribe, which is a country in this case today. Therefore, even though it is inefficient, countries will vie to have higher and higher military power (or ally with one who does) because the threat of violence is often as good as violence itself.
I think it's a tragic waste.
> What are we doing? Is it necessary?
Depends how you look at it. In the wild, humans evolved to be watchful and suspicious of threats to their tribes, mainly other tribes trying to take what's theirs. So they'd make weapons to defend themselves.
Modern humans have huge tribes (countries) and the weapons they create are also huge (nuclear, armies, drones)... but the threat remains the same... other tribes they don't trust
There's also natural selection at play here. Tribes which don't/can't defend themselves are taken over by those who can... it's a sad truth that won't be changing anytime soon
Depends how you look at it. In the wild, humans evolved to be watchful and suspicious of threats to their tribes, mainly other tribes trying to take what's theirs. So they'd make weapons to defend themselves.
Modern humans have huge tribes (countries) and the weapons they create are also huge (nuclear, armies, drones)... but the threat remains the same... other tribes they don't trust
There's also natural selection at play here. Tribes which don't/can't defend themselves are taken over by those who can... it's a sad truth that won't be changing anytime soon
I think it's always good to question things and government actions.
"We are creating advanced weapons designed to kill en masse."
I don't necessarily agree with this. We have developed weapons to kill en masse, such as nuclear weapons etc. The vast majority of the weapons we create now are designed to limit casualties as compared to past years. Think about all the dumb, nuclear, and fire bombs dropped in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Now compare that with today's weapons, such as hellfires that have blades instead of warheads so you can kill a passenger in a car without killing the driving.
Do we still have the other types of weapons - sure. But overall, the trend is fewer casualties because we stop using the indiscriminate weapons.
I'm curious how you see the advanced weapons falling into the hands of evil and being used against "the people". The people are the ones who are in the military. Generally, you would have factions on either side of an issue with similar weapons.
"We are creating advanced weapons designed to kill en masse."
I don't necessarily agree with this. We have developed weapons to kill en masse, such as nuclear weapons etc. The vast majority of the weapons we create now are designed to limit casualties as compared to past years. Think about all the dumb, nuclear, and fire bombs dropped in WW2, Korea, and Vietnam. Now compare that with today's weapons, such as hellfires that have blades instead of warheads so you can kill a passenger in a car without killing the driving.
Do we still have the other types of weapons - sure. But overall, the trend is fewer casualties because we stop using the indiscriminate weapons.
I'm curious how you see the advanced weapons falling into the hands of evil and being used against "the people". The people are the ones who are in the military. Generally, you would have factions on either side of an issue with similar weapons.
The world is actually getting more peaceful every year. Fewer and fewer people die from violent conflicts.
I think fewer people would start a war if they themselves risked being killed in it. So you won't see many African despot start wars because the US might bomb their headquarters. On the other hand, we will probably see the US continue waging wars because no one can kill the US President. Hypothetically, if it was possible for an enemy to blow up the White House, I think US foreign policy would be way less hawkish.
I think fewer people would start a war if they themselves risked being killed in it. So you won't see many African despot start wars because the US might bomb their headquarters. On the other hand, we will probably see the US continue waging wars because no one can kill the US President. Hypothetically, if it was possible for an enemy to blow up the White House, I think US foreign policy would be way less hawkish.
> kill en masse
Taking a somewhat devil's advocate role here, many of the advances are the exact opposite of mass killing. They are trying to minimize collateral damage, have better kill ratio or improve survivability.
Another side effect is that new technologies are being developed and later leak to the civilian market for peaceful uses.
I do think though that this is a huge huge waste of money, resources and human life.
Taking a somewhat devil's advocate role here, many of the advances are the exact opposite of mass killing. They are trying to minimize collateral damage, have better kill ratio or improve survivability.
Another side effect is that new technologies are being developed and later leak to the civilian market for peaceful uses.
I do think though that this is a huge huge waste of money, resources and human life.
That's not necessarily good thing though. These weapons are cheap so they can also kill en masse but "tidily". It's less easy to project power with them without actually killing people, so they are less effective as deterrents. In the end, small-scale defense is becoming more important as well.
it is necessary
I can’t help but wonder though, what is the end goal here?
We are creating advanced weapons designed to kill en masse.
This is cause for concern in general, though I wonder the outcome as power falls into the hands of a few, and the people are not just outgunned, but met with drones, lasers, bombs, tanks, facial recognition, fighter jets, AI, satellites, tracking and EMP.
Not even touching on that which is being designed under the shroud of secrecy, with incredible resources.
What are we doing? Is it necessary?