Someone in the comments asked why I support the military coming to power and running things. It’s a good question: why do I shill for military rule? Well its simple: the military needs me and people like me. It needs my fingers to squeeze the trigger on a rifle. It needs my thick skull to stand in front of a flying bullet. The higher-ups might even decide to use my big brain for more than just target practice for the enemy.
Apr 26, 2022·edited Apr 26, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
Something in between a high-level, long-term philosophical discussion and a nuts and bolts tactical review of the war in Ukraine.
Off topic: An essay by Marko Marjanović, Editor of Anti-Empire.com written on a colleagues substack.
Regarding the real danger Russia faces from equivocation by Putin on the ultimate goals of the war in Ukraine, and the failure to mobilize Russian society (no retention of conscripts and no use of conscripts in Ukraine) in what is beginning to look like an existential war against the collective West.
Thanks for the clarification. I will agree, that, as a generalization, technological advancement has always made the ones not able to adapt obsolete, in some sense, but not completely. The camera did not completely destroy the portrait painter profession. Your discussion of needing someone to take a bullet or pull the trigger, is also prone to being obsolete by exactly the same mechanisms of automation and technical advances.
In terms of depopulation, the military would be better served by unquestioning AI soldiers, so, in a world where large numbers of people are viewed as a problem, the solutions for that problem to a military mind may not be any better for we the masses.
Your point about the elite have always historically been the final arbitrator of life and death is again generally true, however, elitism is not confined to technocratic ones there have been many, if not much more military elites in history. There are a rare few who would not delete large segments of our brothers and sisters, if they became inconvenient.
I find expecting solutions for us from the elites is asking for the final solution. The people have survived not because they were needed to pull triggers or plant crops. They survived because they are diverse entities that put themselves in many niches that allowed them to survive and in time thrive. The diversity of survival techniques among the many makes us as a whole very resilient. Solution of a local nature are more likely to survive the current global elite agenda than hoping for failed elites to come to our rescue.
I know, certainty is not available in any of this, but, since you ran a mind experiment and come to a particular viewpoint. I too, thought to give that a try. I'm unsure which is more correct at this time. However, our differences in approach are probably our best tools for survival. I am certainly not able to buy the politicians or other power for sale businesses to make my vision the only acceptable one, if I did, I would be in the elite club. I would become the problem not the solution.
It hardly seems practical to have frequent wars for territory and resources. Yes, Russia may gain territory from the dismemberment of Ukraine, but eventually that type of conflict is going to end with the use of nuclear weapons. I like to point out on occasion that a small nuke, say 150 kT is equivalent to 300 million pounds of TNT.
I agree that the 'greens' are basically espousing an anti-human agenda. We are evil, we are destroying Gaia and therefore we must die (white people first of course). Sadly the truth is that we could easily have many more people on Earth, living a good life. The key to that is opposed by another cult, the anti-nukes. Nuclear power is really without limit (actually Russia is at the forefront of making full use of the energy in uranium), and you can do a lot of things with unlimited energy. It is true, that work could become unnecessary for most people. Can humans live a rewarding life without work? Plenty of SciFi writers have tried to address that.
Something in between a high-level, long-term philosophical discussion and a nuts and bolts tactical review of the war in Ukraine.
Off topic: An essay by Marko Marjanović, Editor of Anti-Empire.com written on a colleagues substack.
Regarding the real danger Russia faces from equivocation by Putin on the ultimate goals of the war in Ukraine, and the failure to mobilize Russian society (no retention of conscripts and no use of conscripts in Ukraine) in what is beginning to look like an existential war against the collective West.
https://edwardslavsquat.substack.com/p/russia-says-its-fighting-the-whole?s=r
Thanks for the clarification. I will agree, that, as a generalization, technological advancement has always made the ones not able to adapt obsolete, in some sense, but not completely. The camera did not completely destroy the portrait painter profession. Your discussion of needing someone to take a bullet or pull the trigger, is also prone to being obsolete by exactly the same mechanisms of automation and technical advances.
In terms of depopulation, the military would be better served by unquestioning AI soldiers, so, in a world where large numbers of people are viewed as a problem, the solutions for that problem to a military mind may not be any better for we the masses.
Your point about the elite have always historically been the final arbitrator of life and death is again generally true, however, elitism is not confined to technocratic ones there have been many, if not much more military elites in history. There are a rare few who would not delete large segments of our brothers and sisters, if they became inconvenient.
I find expecting solutions for us from the elites is asking for the final solution. The people have survived not because they were needed to pull triggers or plant crops. They survived because they are diverse entities that put themselves in many niches that allowed them to survive and in time thrive. The diversity of survival techniques among the many makes us as a whole very resilient. Solution of a local nature are more likely to survive the current global elite agenda than hoping for failed elites to come to our rescue.
I know, certainty is not available in any of this, but, since you ran a mind experiment and come to a particular viewpoint. I too, thought to give that a try. I'm unsure which is more correct at this time. However, our differences in approach are probably our best tools for survival. I am certainly not able to buy the politicians or other power for sale businesses to make my vision the only acceptable one, if I did, I would be in the elite club. I would become the problem not the solution.
I suppose the counter-argument would be that the tech oligarchs expect boots on the ground in foreign wars to be provided by Boston Dynamics.
It hardly seems practical to have frequent wars for territory and resources. Yes, Russia may gain territory from the dismemberment of Ukraine, but eventually that type of conflict is going to end with the use of nuclear weapons. I like to point out on occasion that a small nuke, say 150 kT is equivalent to 300 million pounds of TNT.
I agree that the 'greens' are basically espousing an anti-human agenda. We are evil, we are destroying Gaia and therefore we must die (white people first of course). Sadly the truth is that we could easily have many more people on Earth, living a good life. The key to that is opposed by another cult, the anti-nukes. Nuclear power is really without limit (actually Russia is at the forefront of making full use of the energy in uranium), and you can do a lot of things with unlimited energy. It is true, that work could become unnecessary for most people. Can humans live a rewarding life without work? Plenty of SciFi writers have tried to address that.