Human-animals

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 4:56 pm

Yeah - they force it to assume some arbitrary value.

dragonranpu · Postby **dragonranpu** » Sun Dec 05, 2004 9:11 pm

But even with the actual cost of the materials of the robots and the cost of development and support, Human life is still by far more valuable even if you can put a number on a human life, which will in the end lead to robots alone in wars and the cost of war will not factor in Human life making it acceptable. Robots even if they are hugely expensive can be replaces were as a human life cannot be replaces. That is the problem; people feel that war is unacceptable unless there is no other choice when it comes to the factor of the cost in human lives. When the cost of human life is removed, then what will people feel about it. I know I am probably too cynical of the human race but without the cost in human lives calculated in wars they will end up becoming more acceptable. I am not saying that all humans will find war acceptable under any circumstances but the percentage that do not find it acceptable will eventually shrink. Granted I would prefer robots in wars over humans in the wars because I feel that each and every life is special and precious. But so far my 36 years of life and experience has shown me things about human nature that I wish I did not know. Heck in some places Human life has no value either. People are sold as slaves in some countries. In the USA gangs will shoot you for no other reason that looking at them wrong. In the end ths is just my opinion for what it is worth.

Tavis · Postby **Tavis** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:22 am

No matter how much a war with robots would cost and regardless of the value of human life, I do not think war planners would give up using any war-capable resource that is available. Even if a country could have a virtually limitless supply of hardware, it would still be eager to accept willing soldiers of any kind into battle.

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 5:24 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Gizensha @ Dec 4 2004, 10:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> Not quite, it tends to be that civilians want cheap, expendable soldiers. In the UK that tends to be robots are preferable for animals since, well, the UK is a nation of animal lovers.  </td></tr></table>  "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making some other poor, dumb bastard die for his country." --General George Smith Patton Jr. My point was that "expendible" soldiers are not as desirable as deadly ones. If conscripts were as effective as professional soldiers, it would be another story. Why not use remote-control infantry? Well, the fact that such a thing would be prohbitively expensive aside, it's not practical. Even if you could make it effective as having a living human person there, the enemy would just find a way to attack the people controlling the robots. I like to hear eggheads talk about how some day all wars could be fought by robots and nobody would get hurt. That is such unbelievable nonsense I sometimes wonder if they're not all in on a joke. It evidences a complete misunderstanding of the nature of war*. Let's try the idea out. Country A and Country B hate each other enough to go to war. A and B both have robotic armies. Country A destroys all of B's robot soldiers. Do the people of country B 1) surrender unconditionally, or 2) pick up rifles and fight A the old-fashioned way? Werewolves-- well, if they could eat the men they killed, and were good shots, they'd be pretty good soldiers. But let's not be any sillier than absolutely necessary. The Werewolves, like the "Clones" was a nod toward hollywood, not reality. Actual clones would be much more expensive to create, would cost the same to train, and would be suceptible to all the problems that cloned animals seem to have, barring improvement in technology. *Granted, today's politicians have a very odd idea of what war is. You can't build a nation with war. You can only kill the people who are preventing you from doing whatever it is you want to do. "Hearts and minds," my hairy ass. We aren't going to change their minds by playing nice. That just gets our people killed. You win a war by killing enough people on the other side that they give up. In the case of Islamic Fundamentalists, surrender is highly unlikely. Therefore, we have to kill them all. Minimizing civilian casualties helps to cut down on their recruiting, but in the end, the only way to win a war on people who strap bombs to themselves is to kill every last one of them.

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Mon Dec 06, 2004 4:36 pm

*Nips in* But of course, by accidentally killing civilians, you could turn a normal Islamic follower into an Islamic extremist. And it's very hard to kill every extremist if you don't know about them. It's a vicious 'coicle, mate, innit?

Septimius Severus · Postby **Septimius Severus** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 2:51 pm

Indeed, a very good point. So the US has four choices: 1) Kill all muslims, just in case they're extremists. Be prepared to kill everyone who doesn't agree with that. Repeat. Marry a hate-spewing supermodel and repopulate the Earth. 2) Fight a limited war against obvious targets until Islamic Fundamentalism loses its appeal. (After all, it's only been around since 632. I'm sure it will peter out some day.) Basically like treatment of AIDS, hoping to slow the virus down until a cure comes along. 3) Revert to Clinton Administration policies (sporadic bombing to show that we are, indeed, displeased when our people get blown up.) Prepare for more 9-11 magnitude attacks. 4) Do nothing, and just suck it up when our Empire is crushed by infiltration and terrorism. (Note: The Romans tried giving the Goths land to make them allies. It just made them richer and a hell of a lot closer to the heartland.)

Ankaris · Postby **Ankaris** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 3:14 pm

Wow. Sucks to be the US. <img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... unsure.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='unsure.gif' /> I'd go with choice 2. But then I'm odd like that.

Henohenomoheji · Postby **Henohenomoheji** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:24 pm

Wait... I smell a conspiracy... *sniff* *sniff* Edit: Never mind, it wasn't a very good one. Also, you forgot to factor in space aliens.

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:28 pm

<img src='http://imagehost.biz/ims/pictes/105872.png' border='0' alt='user posted image' />It is a conspiracy, though...

GhostWay · Postby **GhostWay** » Tue Dec 07, 2004 11:44 pm

Or is it a conspiracy to make you think it's a conspiracy. Although it is possible it's a conspiracy to convince you there's a conspiracy that there's a conspiracy which involves a conspiracy for covering up a non-conspiracy.

Richard K Niner · Postby **Richard K Niner** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 12:45 am

<img src='http://definecynical.mancubus.net/forum ... /wacko.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wacko.gif' /> Wait, what?

GhostWay · Postby **GhostWay** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 1:23 am

Precisely.

Burning Sheep Productions · Postby **Burning Sheep Productions** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:41 am

*Head explodes.*

VisibilityMissing · Postby **VisibilityMissing** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 2:52 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' ><tr><td class='quotetop'>Quote: (Burning Sheep Productions @ Dec 8 2004, 08:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quotebody'> *Head explodes.*  </td></tr></table>  Oh, dear, that's been happening a lot lately. *Starts mopping*

hdofu · Postby **hdofu** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:46 am

Human beings never tire of playing God, despite how bad they are at it.

Define Cynical Fan Forums

Human-animals

Who is online