Human brains have highly evolved empathy software that can cause a human soldier to pause before taking an action that will end with a lot of casualties. True, the process of making soldiers involves a lot of de-sensitizing these instincts. But my point is those instincts are present in normal human beings and have to be over-ridden with extensive training, vs. robots that are likely to be intentionally designed to be psychopaths.
Winning is the point of warfare. Inflicting enemy causalities just happens to be part of winning.
Ok, so rather than 'winning' it's achieving the desired change through application of force. If the point of warfare was inflicting enemy casualties, than we would have already won in Iraq and Afghanistan... and Vietnam. We've been moving away from the whole 'kill as much people as possible' method of warfare for quite a while.
Omelets require breaking eggs, but the point of omelets isn't to break eggs.
Comments
Human brains have highly evolved empathy software that can cause a human soldier to pause before taking an action that will end with a lot of casualties. True, the process of making soldiers involves a lot of de-sensitizing these instincts. But my point is those instincts are present in normal human beings and have to be over-ridden with extensive training, vs. robots that are likely to be intentionally designed to be psychopaths.
I'm not sure whether this is a point in favor of humans or in favor of robots. Inflicting enemy casualties is the point of warfare.
Winning is the point of warfare. Inflicting enemy causalities just happens to be part of winning.
Ok, so rather than 'winning' it's achieving the desired change through application of force. If the point of warfare was inflicting enemy casualties, than we would have already won in Iraq and Afghanistan... and Vietnam. We've been moving away from the whole 'kill as much people as possible' method of warfare for quite a while.
Omelets require breaking eggs, but the point of omelets isn't to break eggs.