This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The human brain may always be more efficient on a watt basis, but that doesn’t really matter when we can generate / capture extraordinary amounts of energy.
Energy infrastructure is brittle, static and vulnerable to attack in a way that the lone infantryman isn't. It matters.
Do you expect that to remain true as the price of solar panels continues to drop? A human brain only takes about 20 watts to run. If we can get within a factor of 10 of that, that's 200 watts. Currently that's a few square meters of solar panels costing a couple thousand dollars, and a few dozen kilos of battery packs, also costing a couple thousand dollars. It's not as robust as a lone infantryman, but it's already quite a lot cheaper, and the price is continuing to drop.
Although that said, solar panels require quite a lot of sensitive and stationary infrastructure to make, I could see the argument that the ability to fabricate them will not last long in any large scale conflict.
The industry required to make all these doodads just becomes the target. Unless you dealing with something fully autonomous to the degree that it carries its own reproduction, you're not gonna beat life in a survival contest.
That said, I don't really expect portable energy generation to be efficient enough in the near future to matter in the way you're thinking. Moreover, this totally glosses over maintenance which is a huge weakness any high tech implement has in terms of logistics.
More options
Context Copy link
About 6 sqm of panels at STC, probably more like 12-18 realistically (2.4-3.6kW, plus at least 10-15kWh of batteries. The math gets brutal for critical uptime off-grid solar, but some people have more than that on an RV these days. So it's not really presenting a much larger target than a road-mobile human would be (at least one with the comms and computer gear needed to do a similar job)
And the machine brain is always going to be vastly more optimized for multitasking than a human.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I dunno, some of the ways I can think of to bring down a transformer station or a concrete-hulled building involve violent forces that would, in fact, be similarly capable of reducing a lone infantryman to a bloody pulp.
You're probably thinking of explosives or some kind, but you're thinking about terminal ballistics instead of the delivery mechanism and other factors.
A man in khakis with a shovel can move out of the way of bombardment, use cover to hide and dig himself fortifications, all of which mitigates the use of artillery and ballistic missiles.
Static buildings that house infrastructure have no such advantage and require active defense forces to survive threats. They're sitting ducks.
I'm not pulling this analysis out of my ass mind you, this is what you'll find in modern whitepapers on high intensity warfare that recommend against relying on anything that requires a complex supply chain because everybody expects most complex infrastructure (sats, power grids, etc) to be destroyed early and high tech weapons to become either useless or prized reserves that won't be doing the bulk of the fighting.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link