Most active commenters

    ←back to thread

    The past was not that cute

    (juliawise.net)
    430 points mhb | 20 comments | 06 Dec 25 21:53 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
    Show context
    delichon ◴[06 Dec 25 23:38 UTC] No.46177641[source]▶
    Back in 2025 before cheap bots, our grandparents endured lives of servitude. They spent an enormous amount of time doing simple chores like folding clothes, driving, programming, washing and dusting, grooming themselves. They had to walk their own dogs and play with their own children. They sometimes even had to cook their own food, directly over fire. "Hygiene" was a primitive joke. A full day's work usually wasn't even enough to buy a single new car. They wrote checks to the government, rather than the other way around. Life was brutal, desperate and short.
    replies(6): >>46177748 #>>46179381 #>>46179417 #>>46179665 #>>46180237 #>>46181210 #
    djtango ◴[07 Dec 25 06:38 UTC] No.46179665[source]▶
    Why is UBI assumed as part of techtopia? When the government has access to unlimited labour and military via robots, why do they need citizens anymore? Beyond some antiquated moral obligation, why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting?
    replies(7): >>46179726 #>>46179806 #>>46179836 #>>46180763 #>>46181052 #>>46185336 #>>46185480 #
    SturgeonsLaw ◴[07 Dec 25 07:12 UTC] No.46179836[source]▶
    >why would a government actually do anything for a population that is net value extracting?

    Because we outnumber them a million to one, and history is littered with examples of what happens to leaders who squeeze their population a little too far

    replies(5): >>46180006 #>>46180028 #>>46180032 #>>46180628 #>>46182130 #
    1. bigstrat2003 ◴[07 Dec 25 07:50 UTC] No.46180006[source]▶
    I'm not really convinced it's actually possible to overthrow a modern government. The disparity in killing power available to the two sides is just too great. Like yeah we outnumber the government a million to one (figuratively), but that's not going to help much when they have tanks, artillery, and planes to defend themselves with.
    replies(5): >>46180033 #>>46180685 #>>46181006 #>>46182629 #>>46185546 #
    2. Aloha ◴[07 Dec 25 07:57 UTC] No.46180033[source]▶
    The people that run that killing power are also citizens, and they either must be bought at an increasing steep price, or they will go with the bulk of the nation (mostly with their near and distant relatives who are suffering) - network effects are very real here.
    replies(3): >>46180287 #>>46180643 #>>46181613 #
    3. ◴[07 Dec 25 09:05 UTC] No.46180287[source]▶
    4. beeflet ◴[07 Dec 25 10:17 UTC] No.46180643[source]▶
    What happens when the killing power is a autonomous machine? Like now?
    replies(1): >>46181778 #
    5. beeflet ◴[07 Dec 25 10:26 UTC] No.46180685[source]▶
    The highly specialized vehicles of war are not that threatening in a civil conflict. Think about how much tax money it takes to purchase a tank for example. There is maybe 1 tank for every 1000 people, let's say. Yet it only takes a single rocket launcher to destroy a tank.

    Look at what happened to the USA in Afganistan recently. What really threatens the chances of popular revolution are the systems of surveillance and inter-dependence that we are building up, and the existence of killer drones that can compete with armed peasants at scale.

    6. acessoproibido ◴[07 Dec 25 11:36 UTC] No.46181006[source]▶
    Didnt the nation armed with all of this modern tech lose to a guerilla force of ricefarmers armed with sharpened sticks and AKs? Or do you think the Vietnam war would go very different now?
    replies(1): >>46181376 #
    7. anon-3988 ◴[07 Dec 25 12:58 UTC] No.46181376[source]▶
    The US could have easily, easily won the Vietnam war if they just dropped 1 or 2 nukes. The modern military is going to have drone that swarm the sky 24/7. They can develop virus that only they have the cure to. They can drop EMPs. They can grow their own food in their own lab while we all slowly die and wither outside.

    These are powers that are actually, technically, plausibly be granted to a single or several individual in the future.

    The future where human is obsolete is scary. Just reread that sentence again. Humans are obsolete.

    replies(1): >>46182607 #
    8. throw-the-towel ◴[07 Dec 25 13:41 UTC] No.46181613[source]▶
    If this argument were true, dictatorships couldn't exist. However, they do.
    replies(4): >>46181965 #>>46182837 #>>46183493 #>>46184286 #
    9. throw310822 ◴[07 Dec 25 14:09 UTC] No.46181778{3}[source]▶
    It's a very valid concern, but technological advances are also available to the people. Asymmetrics war (terrorism, depending the side you're on) is always a possibility, unless the gap between the possibility of states and those of citizens grows too wide.
    10. makeitdouble ◴[07 Dec 25 14:37 UTC] No.46181965{3}[source]▶
    You're assuming that citizen are united in what they want. That's usually not the case.
    11. SV_BubbleTime ◴[07 Dec 25 15:55 UTC] No.46182607{3}[source]▶
    Since no one has bothered to explain how wrong you are… I’ll give you the easy version…

    Tanks and drones, don’t stand on street corners and enforce non-assembly and curfews.

    The tanks and drones argument and later Biden’s “we have F15s” claim are wildly devoid of reality. You do not understand what a “modern military” is. Each MRAP takes multiple people to keep it running, and it’s just a diesel truck.

    You think tanks and drones don’t take teams of people to keep running?

    replies(2): >>46187953 #>>46189954 #
    12. SV_BubbleTime ◴[07 Dec 25 15:58 UTC] No.46182629[source]▶
    No offense, but ask someone in the military how wrong you are.

    Tanks and drones don’t stand on street corners and enforce curfews.

    Our “modern military” in handicapped in multiple ways, primarily that society does not have the stomach to win wars anymore. And, beyond that, it takes TEAMS of people to keep the simplest vehicle or weapon system running. It’s all logistics and fuel.

    In a civil conflict it was dissolve quickly without a unified force and a ton of fuel.

    13. Warwolt ◴[07 Dec 25 16:21 UTC] No.46182837{3}[source]▶
    > they either must be bought at an increasing steep price
    replies(1): >>46183874 #
    14. ACCount37 ◴[07 Dec 25 17:44 UTC] No.46183493{3}[source]▶
    Most dictatorships make no less than a half-hearted attempt to convince the population to support them.

    And then they make a point out of terrorizing the people who don't support them. Just so the others have no trouble discerning whether believing them is a good idea or not.

    replies(1): >>46187929 #
    15. throw-the-towel ◴[07 Dec 25 18:33 UTC] No.46183874{4}[source]▶
    Right, what I was getting at is -- that isn't a fatal problem in practice, the price stays affordable.
    16. ◴[07 Dec 25 19:24 UTC] No.46184286{3}[source]▶
    17. pcrh ◴[07 Dec 25 21:52 UTC] No.46185546[source]▶
    That depends on your definition of "overthrow".

    Governments are routinely replaced in western democracies.

    18. HaZeust ◴[08 Dec 25 03:21 UTC] No.46187929{4}[source]▶
    Was this supposed to be a counter-argument?
    19. HaZeust ◴[08 Dec 25 03:26 UTC] No.46187953{4}[source]▶
    Thinking that people won't fall in line is blind idealism. Autonomous weapons of war are already here as it is - formidable individually, worse than a WMD at scale. Day by day, we're getting closer to a militaristic reality where a commanding officer doesn't need a subordinate's turnkey or permission to enact scaled conflict.

    Open a browser tab or start a conversation at a bar today, millions of people are in uproar because elected representatives and military officers issued a video that was JUST A REMINDER that military members have a moral and legal duty to reject manifestly illegal orders. Nevermind how they'll inevitably act when the chips are down, and it's now actually time to reject an order from the commander in chief - or someone that answers to him.

    This place fetishizes CGP Grey more than anything - watch his dictatorship video about only needing to hold a few "key" (figuratively and literally) officials in place to get your bidding done most efficiently.

    20. anon-3988 ◴[08 Dec 25 08:51 UTC] No.46189954{4}[source]▶
    I'd say it takes about 1 million people with modern military capability to completely take over the world.