How about you go to war yourself or send your children. I'd rather send a robot. It's safer for both the soldier and the people on the ground because you don't have to shoot first, ask questions later.
And you're right, we shouldn't monitor anyone. We should just allow terrorists to talk openly to plot attacks on us. After all, I'd rather have my privacy than my life. dumb. On Mon, Aug 2, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Steve Richfield <steve.richfi...@gmail.com>wrote: > Sometime when you are flying between the northwest US to/from Las Vegas, > look out your window as you fly over Walker Lake in eastern Nevada. At the > south end you will see a system of roads leading to tiny buildings, all > surrounded by military security. From what I have been able to figure out, > you will find the U.S. arsenal of chemical and biological weapons housed > there. No, we are not now making these weapons, but neither are we disposing > of them. > > Similarly, there has been discussion of developing advanced military > technology using AGI and other computer-related methods. I believe that > these efforts are fundamentally anti-democratic, as they allow a small > number of people to control a large number of people. Gone are the days when > people voted with their swords. We now have the best government that money > can buy monitoring our every email, including this one, to identify anyone > resisting such efforts. 1984 has truly arrived. This can only lead to a > horrible end to freedom, with AGIs doing their part and more. > > Like chemical and biological weapons, unmanned and automated weapons should > be BANNED. Unfortunately, doing so would provide a window of opportunity for > others to deploy them. However, if we make these and stick them in yet > another building at the south end of Walker Lake, we would be ready in case > other nations deploy such weapons. > > How about an international ban on the deployment of all unmanned and > automated weapons? The U.S. won't now even agree to ban land mines. At least > this would restore SOME relationship between popular support and military > might. Doesn't it sound "ethical" to insist that a human being decide when > to end another human being's life? Doesn't it sound "fair" to require the > decision maker to be in harm's way, especially when the person being killed > is in or around their own home? Doesn't it sound unethical to add to the > present situation? When deployed on a large scale, aren't these WMDs? > > Steve > > *agi* | Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now> > <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/> | > Modify<https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;>Your Subscription > <http://www.listbox.com> > ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=8660244-6e7fb59c Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
