• Stephen Hawking: Space could prevent the disappearance of humanity by the colonisation of other plan
    65 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Sableye;47194643]i'd still argue that with the advent of the Kalashnikov, killing has gotten more common and way easier. [/QUOTE] Killing has been easy since the advent of clubs and spears. All modern weapons do is make it easier for smaller numbers of soldiers to project force, but we also live in societies where a much smaller percentage of our population actively participates in the military. We have tanks and assault rifles and artillery, but our military population is 1%-3% for most countries. Of that number, only a small fraction, maybe one in five at the most absurdly optimistic, is a direct combat unit, with the rest being for support and logistics. At [i]best[/i], that's a 0.6% combat-ready population, or 1 in 167. A Mongol horde? Every able-bodied man is a soldier. Every soldier fights. If half the population is male, and half of the male population able to fight at any given time, that's a 25% combat-ready population. That's one in four. Deng brought up the Rwandan genocide and I'd strongly suggest you read up on it. It wasn't perpetrated with arsenals of Kalashnikovs. It was perpetrated with machetes, and thousands of angry young men using them to butcher civilians. Modern weapons allow individuals to project more force, but require such an extensive infrastructure to maintain them that the number of individuals who can actively participate in a conflict is far lower than in antiquity. And that also makes conflict less bloody, because a much lower percentage of the population is on the front line. Even leaving aside the difference in how civilian populations are treated in modern conflict, the total elimination of all military capability for an ancient society would have meant the deaths of all able-bodied men, devastating the population, whereas in modern times, even the most gruesome of military defeats result in a small number of actual casualties. Combine with other factors, such as the increasingly strategic nature of war, and the difference is clear. In an irreconcilable conflict, one that will not be decided by a political surrender, two Greek states going to war would muster up as many able-bodied men as possible and fight until one side was all but annihilated. The victors would ransack the defeated nation and butcher the population. In the same scenario between two modern states, even total military destruction means a small percentage of the population dead, the civilians are avoided when possible, and the battle is more likely to be decided by the elimination of strategic and logistical targets than complete elimination of the opposing military.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;47186561]when discussing something like "the survival of the human race", you cannot view it through the normal lenses of morality and ethicality and come up with any viable solutions. unless there is a major technological breakthrough, it will be impossible to get everyone off this planet. at that point, a person who knows what they are doing [I]will[/I] be more valuable than someone who does not. a thousand charity workers, business leaders, children, and artists will most likely not be as valuable as someone who studied for a large portion of their life ways to produce food in a colony setting, or someone who has the proper education and training to be able to repair things in the colony. the amount of people who would be colonists would very likely be very limited, with each person needing to provide a benefit to the colony. i cannot see there being much room for people who have none of the education required to ride along. it could very well be a fatal mistake to bring along an average joe over someone who can provide a benefit, and if you truly believe that you are colonizing for the survival of the human race, that is not a chance worth taking.[/QUOTE] If you're going to be bringing people based on their knowledge and skills, you wouldn't leave EVERY artist. Aside from 'smart people' being inclined to enjoy music art and appreciate it, having musicians and artists on planet is something they'd probably care for, as well as the fact that humans are different and having only booksmart people together is kind of defining yourself to one specific type of society. There's no way they're just taking "nerds" and not also bringing military/ex-military, musicians and artists, and probably a healthy amount of people with fields like that. You're going to colonize a new planet and not bring a writer or a photographer?
[QUOTE=Deng;47186463]It's quite extraordinary that he does not realise (based on solid empirical evidence) that we live in probably the least violent time in human history.[/QUOTE] But the time when violence presents the most consequence. Throughout history weapons technology has got more and more deadly and efficient to the point where all we need to prevent violence is the threat of violence, but a strike from any major power would have cause more devastation than months of war 100 years ago because America and Russia are both sitting on nukes hoping they will never have to use them.
This is why he really deserved it when he won that Best Actor Oscar...
[QUOTE=Warriorx4;47186070]"Eyes off the ghettos/Keep watching those space shuttles." I mean he's right and all, but man is there some shit we gotta work out down here.[/QUOTE] That shit will never get sorted out. We need to hurry up and start over.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.