Should We Ban Killer Robots?
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of banning Lethal Autonomous Weapons.
Read Full Article
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of banning Lethal Autonomous Weapons.
Read Full Article
The U.N was created after WW2 precisely for that purpose. Hasn't worked out well thus far.Stupidity said:How about a law that bans war?
A lot of things could lead to authoritarian dystopias. In fact a lot of things have led to authoritarian dystopias, its just one of those things people do. You know what one of the strongest factors in preventing those naturally occurring dystopias from lasting and actually conquering the world? They are non competitive in a number of fields over the long term, including technology.Jadedvet said:A robotic army could easily lead to the authoritarian dystopia seen in 1984.
Advanced robotics could very easily give us access to resources not from our planet. Our solar system alone has asteroids floating around that mass hundreds of times greater than the mass of the planet earth. There is no reason at all that in a few decades we cant start dragging them back to earth with robotic ships.Xsjadoblayde said:A larger problem is that we have no population control, yet we spout the benefits of saving more lives by robot soldiers, which requires more materials from this finite supply on our planet.
Has World War 3 happened and no-one told me? If not, then you could say it's doing pretty well so far. Better than the League of Nations did, anyway.008Zulu said:The U.N was created after WW2 precisely for that purpose. Hasn't worked out well thus far.Stupidity said:How about a law that bans war?
51 million people have died in war since 1945, roughly the same as died in WW2.Lunncal said:Has World War 3 happened and no-one told me? If not, then you could say it's doing pretty well so far. Better than the League of Nations did, anyway.
We have had Korea, Vietnam, (what are we up to now, 4?) in the Persian Gulf. Why didn't they stop those?Lunncal said:Has World War 3 happened and no-one told me? If not, then you could say it's doing pretty well so far. Better than the League of Nations did, anyway.
Well, not exactly. The UN was intended to be a global peacekeeping force of sorts and to take action against nations that were turning into a threat and/or were involved in serious humanitarian violations. The plan being that if a nation really stepped out of line the entire UN would act. In reality the only nation that really took the UN that seriously was the USA which wound up providing most of the materials and manpower along with a few key allies. Everyone else in the UN largely used it as an excuse to not have to get involved in doing anything. The UN sort of ceased to have any purpose when the very nations it was supposed to be regulating like China and Russia were not only invited to be members but given seats on the security council, which pretty much means that you can give up any chance of it being a humanitarian organization or even protecting trade. All the UN really does is provide a channel for dialogue nowadays, ultimately being both toothless and pointless. As a general rule the UN will talk a good game, but when it actually comes to doing anything, not so much.008Zulu said:The U.N was created after WW2 precisely for that purpose. Hasn't worked out well thus far.Stupidity said:How about a law that bans war?
The lead-in into this article is an utter fail already.David Rodgers said:Should We Ban Killer Robots?
Experts weigh in on the pros and cons of banning Lethal Autonomous Weapons.
Read Full Article
It has staved off World War 3 for about 70 years. It's done a much better job than its predecessor the League of Nations which was supposed to hinder WWII, but could only stave it off for less than 30 year. Stopping every war from occurring is naive idealism. Holding off and mitigating the big wars is the best we can hope for, and it's worked at that.008Zulu said:The U.N was created after WW2 precisely for that purpose. Hasn't worked out well thus far.Stupidity said:How about a law that bans war?
Um... Is that supposed to be a point against my comment? 51 million people dying in wars across 70 years, and 51 million people dying in war across 6 years. So... Since World War 2 deaths from war have decreased by a factor of about 10? So there's been no world war 3, and the UN is doing pretty good?albino boo said:51 million people have died in war since 1945, roughly the same as died in WW2.Lunncal said:Has World War 3 happened and no-one told me? If not, then you could say it's doing pretty well so far. Better than the League of Nations did, anyway.
I... don't know? I never claimed the UN was perfect, I don't even know if it's actually the reason war and conflict have been decreasing since World War 2, all I was saying is that I disagree with your original comment:008Zulu said:We have had Korea, Vietnam, (what are we up to now, 4?) in the Persian Gulf. Why didn't they stop those?Lunncal said:Has World War 3 happened and no-one told me? If not, then you could say it's doing pretty well so far. Better than the League of Nations did, anyway.
Its worked out extremely well so far. (Though again, it's very possible these amazing results aren't because of the UN.)008Zulu said:The U.N was created after WW2 precisely for that purpose. Hasn't worked out well thus far.Stupidity said:How about a law that bans war?