I think this campaign suffers from something of a branding problem in that "killer robots" theoretically includes human-controlled robots.
They need to be extremely up-front that what they're opposed to is autonomous battlefield robots. From the title/link, I assumed they opposed all battlefield robots (like the ridiculous drone) crowd, which is an absurd and extreme position.
Their actual position, of opposing autonomous robots, is a lot more sensible and should be their sole focus.
I don't see how it's absurd to be opposed to technology that makes violence more convenient for wealthy aggressors. One could argue that reducing the human costs of war would only bring more war.
That theory certainly played out after World War I. After seeing that ridiculously high cost of life, war was prevented for generations.. It wasn't until 200 years later that World War II happened.
Sorry rounding error.. I meant 20 years later and World War II was far worse than WWI..
As far as 'wealthy aggressors' who do you mean? Certainly not the ultra wealthy Serbs and Croats, you couldn't possibility mean the wealthy Al Queda groups or the fabulously wealthy Taliban groups. Or Hebollah.. The Ba'ath party was wealthy, so maybe you mean them?
Certainly you must be referring to those aggressors right?
Consider how much more information is now available about human costs, though. If your brother/father/son/friend went to war in the early 20th century and died, you probably got a photo and a posthumous medal. Now, Collateral Murder goes viral and gets millions of views.
Comments
I think this campaign suffers from something of a branding problem in that "killer robots" theoretically includes human-controlled robots.
They need to be extremely up-front that what they're opposed to is autonomous battlefield robots. From the title/link, I assumed they opposed all battlefield robots (like the ridiculous drone) crowd, which is an absurd and extreme position.
Their actual position, of opposing autonomous robots, is a lot more sensible and should be their sole focus.
...which is an absurd and extreme position.
I don't see how it's absurd to be opposed to technology that makes violence more convenient for wealthy aggressors. One could argue that reducing the human costs of war would only bring more war.
That theory certainly played out after World War I. After seeing that ridiculously high cost of life, war was prevented for generations.. It wasn't until 200 years later that World War II happened.
Sorry rounding error.. I meant 20 years later and World War II was far worse than WWI..
As far as 'wealthy aggressors' who do you mean? Certainly not the ultra wealthy Serbs and Croats, you couldn't possibility mean the wealthy Al Queda groups or the fabulously wealthy Taliban groups. Or Hebollah.. The Ba'ath party was wealthy, so maybe you mean them?
Certainly you must be referring to those aggressors right?
Consider how much more information is now available about human costs, though. If your brother/father/son/friend went to war in the early 20th century and died, you probably got a photo and a posthumous medal. Now, Collateral Murder goes viral and gets millions of views.