By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
I wouldn't naturally align with an arms manufacturer trying to drum up business, but I can't disagree with this one.
Autonomous weapons, AI generally, climate change...
We, the public, don't (didn't) react to any of these massive threats to our continued existence with democratic pressure in a way that logic would dictate that we ought to have done. Why not?
I don't suppose there's anybody here who was aware of the public mood in the build up to WWII, but plenty of you must have been conscious of Cold War attitudes and protests etc. Were the public more conscious of the threat then, having more open dialogue, and applying more democratic pressure, or is that just my perception from looking at historical new stories?
If so, why do we seem to ignore everything now? We ought to be very well informed about the threat of climate change particularly, but we haven't really reacted in a rational, self-concerned way. Is it that we have been herded into a more inward looking, materialistic existence and trained not to question it? Is it just plain fear and an unwillingness to face reality? Is it an addiction to gaining personal 'wealth' at any cost (and not paying taxes?[ducks]) Is it poor education levels, and too many people just not understanding the basic science behind stuff? Or is it that media like Hollywood and gaming have become so realistic that we believe the fairy story stuff over the cold, hard science which has bought us all the good stuff? And the bad.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Ultimately, we are a selfish group of people that rarely look beyond the now/ very near future - even when evidence is presented to us, we often choose to ignore.
Ade Akinbiyi couldn't hit a cows arse with a banjo...
I don't know that we are complacent about this, specifically.
Britain has the 6th-highest military spend in the world. Our spending combined with our most reliable allies absolutely dwarfs that of Russia. Russia has spent half a decade bogged down in a intractable war with a close neighbour, by no means a military superpower at the beginning of the war. They now seem to be losing and engaging in that conflict has brought their economy to the brink of collapse. The idea that we need to be alarmed about the urgent possibility that the Russians might invade the UK is frankly absurd. So, yes, broadly this is an arms manufacturer drumming up business.
The broader question - why doesn't the public react to things? You need responsible media organisations to give thoughtful shape to public discourse and the UK media simply isn't that. We're raising defence spending because the media shrieked about it for a substantial period of time and the political class reacted. In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.
Why are we so complacent? on 09:32 - Jul 24 by jayessess
I don't know that we are complacent about this, specifically.
Britain has the 6th-highest military spend in the world. Our spending combined with our most reliable allies absolutely dwarfs that of Russia. Russia has spent half a decade bogged down in a intractable war with a close neighbour, by no means a military superpower at the beginning of the war. They now seem to be losing and engaging in that conflict has brought their economy to the brink of collapse. The idea that we need to be alarmed about the urgent possibility that the Russians might invade the UK is frankly absurd. So, yes, broadly this is an arms manufacturer drumming up business.
The broader question - why doesn't the public react to things? You need responsible media organisations to give thoughtful shape to public discourse and the UK media simply isn't that. We're raising defence spending because the media shrieked about it for a substantial period of time and the political class reacted. In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.
It's interesting that, pre Covid, Extinction Rebellion was the extremist end of the reaction to climate change. I'd argue now that climate change is more obvious than ever, and yet there is neither much of a moderate reaction to it, and no sign of the extreme end.
Why are we so complacent? on 09:15 - Jul 24 by homer_123
Ultimately, we are a selfish group of people that rarely look beyond the now/ very near future - even when evidence is presented to us, we often choose to ignore.
It's not just about being selfish, a lot of it is human nature and how we deal with psychological distance and fatigue / threat saturation.
Back in the cold war, the threat of Nuclear war was constant, immediate and direct, therefore risk was "tomorrow, to me.". Until the last few years climate change to the majority has read as "decades from now, mostly to someone else" even though the science has said otherwise, although this is now changing following the more direct impact now being felt with heat waves etc. The AI risk being presented is even more abstract and very difficult for those distanced from the tech industry (and even many of those in the industry) to comprehend.
There's been research on "issue fatigue" which suggests decades of rolling crises coverage and expansion of 24x7 news availability feeding us updates on terrorism, financial collapse, pandemic, culture war has blunted the public's threat-response bandwidth generally - not sure whether that is complacency or apathy or simply exhaustion.
It's obviously not all down to the above, some people are selfish, some are always out to make money at all costs etc.
3
Why are we so complacent? on 09:59 - Jul 24 with 887 views
The deeper the climate-change hole we dig, the more expensive it is going to be to haul ourselves out of it. Sections of the expert community have been telling us that for decades. But democracy dictates a softly, softly approach if a government wishes to cling to power (we members of the public are fickle beasts). I dislike the term “destroy the planet” (I think we mean “destroy civilisation as we know it”); hopefully the planet will find a way to flourish again in the next million years or so after it (aided by purely rational AI?) has removed the scourge that is the human race. So, yeah, I’m actually optimistic for the climate in that respect.
1
Why are we so complacent? on 10:13 - Jul 24 with 822 views
The public did act during the Cold War, they didn’t vote for parties proposing unilateral disarmament. The voted for parties that wanted a strong NATO.
1
Why are we so complacent? on 10:16 - Jul 24 with 797 views
Why are we so complacent? on 09:52 - Jul 24 by bsw72
It's not just about being selfish, a lot of it is human nature and how we deal with psychological distance and fatigue / threat saturation.
Back in the cold war, the threat of Nuclear war was constant, immediate and direct, therefore risk was "tomorrow, to me.". Until the last few years climate change to the majority has read as "decades from now, mostly to someone else" even though the science has said otherwise, although this is now changing following the more direct impact now being felt with heat waves etc. The AI risk being presented is even more abstract and very difficult for those distanced from the tech industry (and even many of those in the industry) to comprehend.
There's been research on "issue fatigue" which suggests decades of rolling crises coverage and expansion of 24x7 news availability feeding us updates on terrorism, financial collapse, pandemic, culture war has blunted the public's threat-response bandwidth generally - not sure whether that is complacency or apathy or simply exhaustion.
It's obviously not all down to the above, some people are selfish, some are always out to make money at all costs etc.
I think that's a really good post. There are conscious and subconscious motives combining, resultant in our general inability to act I suppose.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Why are we so complacent? on 09:32 - Jul 24 by jayessess
I don't know that we are complacent about this, specifically.
Britain has the 6th-highest military spend in the world. Our spending combined with our most reliable allies absolutely dwarfs that of Russia. Russia has spent half a decade bogged down in a intractable war with a close neighbour, by no means a military superpower at the beginning of the war. They now seem to be losing and engaging in that conflict has brought their economy to the brink of collapse. The idea that we need to be alarmed about the urgent possibility that the Russians might invade the UK is frankly absurd. So, yes, broadly this is an arms manufacturer drumming up business.
The broader question - why doesn't the public react to things? You need responsible media organisations to give thoughtful shape to public discourse and the UK media simply isn't that. We're raising defence spending because the media shrieked about it for a substantial period of time and the political class reacted. In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.
'In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.'
That last sentence of yours really illustrates the absolute insanity (wilful or otherwise) of the way many of us are thinking/reacting about an imminent/now critical threat to us and to our children's futures.
[Post edited 24 Jul 10:18]
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Why are we so complacent? on 09:59 - Jul 24 by Europa
The deeper the climate-change hole we dig, the more expensive it is going to be to haul ourselves out of it. Sections of the expert community have been telling us that for decades. But democracy dictates a softly, softly approach if a government wishes to cling to power (we members of the public are fickle beasts). I dislike the term “destroy the planet” (I think we mean “destroy civilisation as we know it”); hopefully the planet will find a way to flourish again in the next million years or so after it (aided by purely rational AI?) has removed the scourge that is the human race. So, yeah, I’m actually optimistic for the climate in that respect.
“destroy civilisation as we know it” and wipe out species and ecosystems that will never return.
That's the human race's legacy.
Good work by Philogene...... GREAT WORK BY PHILOGENE!!!
Why are we so complacent? on 09:32 - Jul 24 by jayessess
I don't know that we are complacent about this, specifically.
Britain has the 6th-highest military spend in the world. Our spending combined with our most reliable allies absolutely dwarfs that of Russia. Russia has spent half a decade bogged down in a intractable war with a close neighbour, by no means a military superpower at the beginning of the war. They now seem to be losing and engaging in that conflict has brought their economy to the brink of collapse. The idea that we need to be alarmed about the urgent possibility that the Russians might invade the UK is frankly absurd. So, yes, broadly this is an arms manufacturer drumming up business.
The broader question - why doesn't the public react to things? You need responsible media organisations to give thoughtful shape to public discourse and the UK media simply isn't that. We're raising defence spending because the media shrieked about it for a substantial period of time and the political class reacted. In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.
Before 2014 it was absurd to think that a country that signed an agreement with two others to guarantee the borders of another in return for giving up its nuclear weapons would be invaded by one of them. Yet even after Crimea was swallowed, heads were buried in the sand and the obvious ignored.
Salisbury poisonings? Nah, just tourists admiring the spire.
Full invasion? Well, they’re all Russian anyway. No threat there. Russia is actively supported by China. Ukraine are the aggressors who started it according to Trump. Just words because he sees another ‘shakedown’ deal either with Russia, Ukraine or both. He doesn’t care about the outcome beyond what he can earn.
Trump demands support in the Middle East. We refuse and are even unable to support friends and allies in the region. We won’t be trusted again. The one rusting destroyer barely made it and had to go immediately to Crete for a refit while Germany had to lend us one for a NATO exercise. You couldn’t make it up.
Taiwan, US idiocy with Iran, Israel, conflicts and potential conflicts everywhere.
Yet peace dividend is still being wrung out here. Labour never has been and never will be interested in defence. Yes, their predecessors actively hollowed it out, milked it. But this is now. The world has changed. Labour were quite clever in announcing increase in military spending by avoiding too much noise around lumping a load of other commitments in the defence budget. So in real terms, the cuts continue. Smoke and mirrors. No doubt for political purposes, there will be another review to then be ignored.
Of course arms manufacturers will want to promote business. But the overriding truth remains. The threats in the world are increasing. That includes Russia. Incursions every day, cyber warfare, the news of their demise is premature. I’m amazed they’ve not used nuclear on Ukraine. Or even a warning one in say the North Sea as a warning to bring the likes of Starmer to heel. I suspect they’ve been held back by their masters China.
But that is all speculation. What isn’t speculation is that there is no international law any more. Empty words, old rules - in the bin. It went when Trump came in. We are back to pre 1939 - there is one law. Might is right. If you have sufficient strength you can demand, bully and rinse the weak. Even swallow them up. It’s not just Trump’s recent threats to Greenland and Canada either.
The US has a track record. It essentially stole Hawaii at the end of the 19c against the wishes of its people. It’s not above a little colonisation when it suits.
That is why the Scandinavians, Poland, Germany are rearming. You need sufficient to make sure you are left alone. In my view it is a government’s first priority to protect itself internally and externally. I do not see this country doing that.
0
Why are we so complacent? on 10:32 - Jul 24 with 717 views
If you looking for a simple answer it has to be “None of the above”
The majority accept that individually there is nothing they can say, or do, that will make a difference. Which is why 1 in 3 don’t bother to vote at a general election. Even fewer vote on local issues. If you live in a village when was the last time you had an election for the parish council?
We exist in our own little bubble and, for many, that can be a struggle. The same situation exists on a national basis there is very little that a Country can do. North Sea oil for instance if we resumed exploration it really wouldn’t have any adverse impact on world stage. It might marginally reduce our carbon footprint as we would import less. It would however provide a source of revenue but no guarantee it would be spent wisely.
You asked about the Cold War. People who joined CND made a lot of noise but they were a minority and seen by many as nutters.
Why are we so complacent? on 09:15 - Jul 24 by homer_123
Ultimately, we are a selfish group of people that rarely look beyond the now/ very near future - even when evidence is presented to us, we often choose to ignore.
I don't completely disagree here but it's a very complex thing isn't it. I think all creatures are essentially the same though right...
Problem is the complexity. We are not all aligned. If we as Britain who are relatively sensible Vs some nations decide to act then we are a drop in the ocean. Someone somewhere is always going to take the risky route with AI, weapons etc (looking at you Russia, China etc) so there becomes this inevitability that things are going to explode....you do nothing and don't follow suit and they become the super powers and invade.
The world is very depressing sometimes.
It is a little bit when rather than if humanity causes the end of the world as we know it.
Why are we so complacent? on 09:32 - Jul 24 by jayessess
I don't know that we are complacent about this, specifically.
Britain has the 6th-highest military spend in the world. Our spending combined with our most reliable allies absolutely dwarfs that of Russia. Russia has spent half a decade bogged down in a intractable war with a close neighbour, by no means a military superpower at the beginning of the war. They now seem to be losing and engaging in that conflict has brought their economy to the brink of collapse. The idea that we need to be alarmed about the urgent possibility that the Russians might invade the UK is frankly absurd. So, yes, broadly this is an arms manufacturer drumming up business.
The broader question - why doesn't the public react to things? You need responsible media organisations to give thoughtful shape to public discourse and the UK media simply isn't that. We're raising defence spending because the media shrieked about it for a substantial period of time and the political class reacted. In a sane world, we would have the same shrieking and hysteria about the impact of climate change, instead we have the opposite, media declaring Ed Miliband public enemy number one, howling about how Net Zero will impoverish us all.
I’m not sure I quite agree with the framing of that though - the increase in defence spending isn’t for the threat of invasion though. We (both UK and Europe) are replenishing inventory that has gone to Ukraine (total commitment of £13bn to date), to aid their defence. It takes a huge increase in spending just to take us back to the position we were in before. Not to forget also a much needed boost to the defence of non-conventional warfare (I.e increased naval presence to deter attacks on critical infrastructure), and a huge increase in spending on cyber warfare capability.
As with climate change, the cost is likely less now than dealing with consequences further down the line. Had we come down harshly on Russia after Crimea, we could potentially have avoided a full scale war.
[Post edited 24 Jul 15:01]
0
Why are we so complacent? on 07:02 - Jul 25 with 100 views
Why are we so complacent? on 09:50 - Jul 24 by Edmundo
It's interesting that, pre Covid, Extinction Rebellion was the extremist end of the reaction to climate change. I'd argue now that climate change is more obvious than ever, and yet there is neither much of a moderate reaction to it, and no sign of the extreme end.
I mean, check out this *objectively insane* combination of fossil fuel propaganda and climate crisis visuals:
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
