Wars as virtual frontiers

[Ex-User (9086)]

I had this idea since a few years I was more into gaming at that time.

I could see how every conflict could be resolved in a virtually designed battlefield with humans of each nation controlling their avatars and waging war.

System would be realistic, I see no reason to make training easy, I would give this system a steep learning curve.

One basic rule, you die in this virtual world - you die in real life. (We could replace death with a choice between becoming a slave or killing oneself)
I don't see a need for other rules, putting children onto the battlefield would be cruel and pointless, however it should be allowed as this happens in reality.

What would be a requirement:
-Removal of tools of mass destruction, they could only exist in a system
-Military developments would be adapted into the system and would have the same secrecy/breakthrough advantages as they do in reality
-agreement of every nation of this system, minor nations could be forced to join regardless of their opinion

What could be gained:
-Civilian casualties approaching 0%
-Saves great amounts of resources other than humans, energy, matter, space
-Creates a more structured and socially accepted area of violence
-Bides time to the point where humans become something else and are not actually agressive in their tribe

National/Organisational economic/population power and other advantages would and could be parsed too

What are your views?

 

[Duxwing]

What happens when someone is a sore loser, leaves their machine, and shoots their 'fairly-playing' enemies? War occurs because cooperation sometimes fails.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes that is what we are trying to achieve, global agreement and cooperation.
It is already achieved by a stalemate of nuclear powers that do not wish to vapourise themselves.

Maybe retaining weapons of mass destruction in reality would be good as "dreaded stick".
Yes it contradicts my idea from OP, but its area of research here.
And all other conventional tools of warfare can be reintegrated into something more purposeful.

 

[Duxwing]

Yes that is what we are trying to achieve, global agreement and cooperation.

If we can cooperate, then we can forcibly commit violent people to mental institutions, where they can be treated or warehoused.

It is already achieved by a stalemate of nuclear powers that do not wish to vapourise themselves.

Maybe retaining weapons of mass destruction in reality would be good as "dreaded stick".

On a side note: are you enjoying imagining these virtual wars? A conflict of interest could cloud your judgment.

Yes it contradicts my idea from OP, but its area of research here.
And all other conventional tools of warfare can be reintegrated into something more purposeful.

Or we can make love and money instead of war.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

If we can cooperate, then we can forcibly commit violent people to mental institutions, where they can be treated or warehoused.

I don't mean to disrespect this opinion and value statement, however people are inherently violent, nowadays it seems and in the past. What I meant to adress was a structural violence used by large systems such as states and military organisations. They could still be violent, win control and resources, without actually plowing through peoples gardens and our little crowded planet.

On a side note: are you enjoying imagining these virtual wars? A conflict of interest could cloud your judgment.

No I have some favourite weapons because I like the design and ingenuity, however pushing buttons and blowing things up is too easy. People scrambling bricks together after the blitz have a much harder job.

Or we can make love and money instead of war.

Love and money are different kinds of battlefields .

 

[Duxwing]

I don't mean to disrespect this opinion and value statement, however people are inherently violent, nowadays it seems and in the past. What I meant to adress was a structural violence used by large systems such as states and military organisations. They could still be violent, win control and resources, without actually plowing through peoples gardens and our little crowded planet.

By inherently violent you mean that anyone in some circumstances or for some reason might commit violence? If you do, then your claim is true and weak: a "violent" person so often personally commits violent acts that they significantly endanger others.

No I have some favourite weapons because I like the design and ingenuity, however pushing buttons and blowing things up is too easy. People scrambling bricks together after the blitz have a much harder job.

The sadism is strong in this one. :P

Love and money are different kinds of battlefields .

Hahaha.

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

By inherently violent you mean that anyone in some circumstances or for some reason might commit violence? If you do, then your claim is true and weak: a "violent" person so often personally commits violent acts that they significantly endanger others.

Right, I don't deal in absolutes here.

Only siths do

As I mentioned, there is what we consider an individual and a state.
Violence is just an outward action, that disregards other people.

So I would refocus it on state vs state military conflicts as well as other structures, we can think of allowing terrorist, religious groups and other organisations to battle there and to impose their systems.

We would consider personal violence as a part of a society.

 

[TheScornedReflex]

So... No matter what, if you die in the virtual world, you must die irl?

What a waste of time and resources.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

So... No matter what, if you die in the virtual world, you must die irl?

What a waste of time and resources.

No, you can actually allow the defeated to accept a policy of a winner, or dissapear.

Dying is simpler because with death the opposition is gone, surviving may have further implications, I only propose enslavement to policy, as normally you would be dead, you are rather a slave to the victor.

 

[Duxwing]

Right, I don't deal in absolutes here.

Coincidentally, the statement "Only a sith deals in an absolute" is an absolute.

As I mentioned, there is what we consider an individual and a state.
Violence is just an outward action, that disregards other people.

So I would refocus it on state vs state military conflicts as well as other structures, we can think of allowing terrorist, religious groups and other organisations to battle there and to impose their systems.

Getting those groups to cooperate would likely allow negotiation: As long as deathly violence is necessary, I propose that the best solution is lawful war.

We would consider personal violence as a part of a society.

(see my earlier proposal)

-Duxwing

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Coincidentally, the statement "Only a sith deals in an absolute" is an absolute.

the Jedi were a hypocritical bunch...

Getting those groups to cooperate would likely allow negotiation: As long as deathly violence is necessary, I propose that the best solution is lawful war.

Sometimes negotiations fail, even after long periods of cooperation. (Jedi quote needed)
So you would initially agree to the idea of protecting bystanders and resources, or is it what you mean that if it was possible to have this kind of an agreement then it would be possible to avoid any conflict.
For the second option I can only mention that even now countries wage war in an orderly fashion. They are forbidden the use of many effective weapons and most conflicts are staged on foreign land using puppet forces.

 

[Cognisant]

Corporate warfare is a lot like this, interested parties engage each other directly without involving their host nations, the battle is mainly about finding/making dirt on the other guy while preventing dirt being made/found on oneself, and when the battle is won the victor subsumes the loser's key staff, equipment, interllectual property, etc.

Or we could have something like a battlefield MMO where people fight for ideologies and capturing control points lets you blanket that area in billboards, posters, radio, TV, etc, that advertises your point of veiw and if you disagree with another's beliefs you can capture all their control points to effectively silence them.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Maybe we are in transition to more familiar times. Cyberpunk's where I was to be born.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I had a similar idea a few years back,
but then i started to wonder about the possibility of "cheating",
then i realized that this world is based on the survival of the fittest (translate that to the will and power of the most brutal), and not the fairest.
Fairness is an ideal taught to the people at the bottom of the hierarchy,
as a means of deception.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

You mean that ultimately we should overcome fairness? Or that we in the end are bound by no concept to describe our actions?

Why would you disagree with a game world where brutal rules prevail and a real world where fairness is allowed thanks to this brutality and fitness that was relocated?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Because, even if we assume, let's say, two nation's struggle over an oil field via the means of a virtual battlefield...
Would the one who loses and yet still maintains the real world military means to just beat the enemy on the real battlefield play by the rules?
World history is dominated by individuals and collectives breaking the rules, not by abiding it.
Sad, but true.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Yes, I understand your point. I was thus proposing to reduce conventional weaponry and leave only WMD if humans indeed wanted to clean themselves off the face of our planet.

So any real world conflict would mean ultimate apocalypse rather than subtle violence and as such should be considered as a polarity of values. Life and death. It would be similar to considering ethics before attempting to cheat.

You assume that any nation perusing this system would be at a disadvantage, as I have projected earlier, every unfair advcantage this nation has would be reflected in the game.

I understand that system of values is personal and there is no objective value in us, however there are so many similar beliefs in each of us that we might find some rather universal standards that we could install on the minority to protect our "methods".

If we indeed follow this subjectivity of values rule then it indeed leaves us in a position that is already controlled by the fittest.

I agree that cheating (murder, coertion, deception, etc.) are true tools that anyone fit can peruse. It is very likely that when other variables were to be abandoned we would be able to measure that we are ruled by the fit and devoid of morality rather than idealists that restrict their view.

If this is indeed so then we can easily move most if not any proposition to the area of personal preferences and goals. For example this thread would objectively mean that one would have to be biased towards human rights and peace/freedom fallacy to even propose such thing.

As easy as it is, we could lay back and see any injustice as personal choice and his own bias to things.

It is then natural for my view, that i project and analyse a world that i deem it should look like. With abstracted and reduced violence, basically taking cheats to another dimension.

Is it then still important or interesting to discuss our personal views, as we can see that there is no objective value in things other than their perceivable position, quantity, physical aspects?

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

I agree that cheating (murder, coertion, deception, etc.) are true tools that anyone fit can peruse. It is very likely that when other variables were to be abandoned we would be able to measure that we are ruled by the fit and devoid of morality rather than idealists that restrict their view.

If this is indeed so then we can easily move most if not any proposition to the area of personal preferences and goals. For example this thread would objectively mean that one would have to be biased towards human rights and peace/freedom fallacy to even propose such thing.

As easy as it is, we could lay back and see any injustice as personal choice and his own bias to things.

It is then natural for my view, that i project and analyse a world that i deem it should look like. With abstracted and reduced violence, basically taking cheats to another dimension.

Is it then still important or interesting to discuss our personal views, as we can see that there is no objective value in things other than their perceivable position, quantity, physical aspects?

Well, i hope you understood that i am pretty much in favour of resolving conflicts on a sort of sports game in the virtual world over the devastating effects of war which causes collateral damage and so forth.

But, let's say: RTA and the BLF want to settle their conflict via the means of virtual sportsmanship.
Wouldn't it be the first idea to any of the "contributing" sides of a conflict to look for unfair advantages, i.e. hacking, getting an unfair advantage over the other?

Ultimately, let's suppose the RTA win a game over the BLF,
would the BLF simply abide to that outcome and submit themselves to the other authority? Of course not.
Same thing the other way round.

What you earlier said about WMDs, i strongly object to this idea.
The technology should be wiped out entirely.
Only then can diplomatic resolutions gain ground.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I agree that WMD's are a final trump card for established economies.

What I cannot agree with is that control over mentioned WMD's is in the hands of some shady string-pulling generals and whatnot.

It should be possible for human race to destroy itself when they find it necessary.

I agree that Diplomacy would gain on importance, should the ultimate force solutions disappear.

I also agree that people would be willing to die for their ideals and so in my system I postulated that every loser should die or be enslaved (no chance to dissent later). This would leave the rest that doesn't really believe in this ideal unscatched and subject to just another tax collector.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

What I cannot agree with is that control over mentioned WMD's is in the hands of some shady string-pulling generals and whatnot.

Is that not the reality?

It should be possible for human race to destroy itself when they find it necessary.

Ideally, perhaps i could agree with you on that.
But who ultimately has to make the decision and what are his/her decisions basis?

This would leave the rest that doesn't really believe in this ideal unscatched and subject to just another tax collector.

But can you build an advanced civilization upon these flip-floppers?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Is that not the reality?

Yes It is, I consider it wrong, somehow, but it's just my view. The fact that some man can press a selection of buttons or make a call and he is able to evaporate several milion or more people.

Ideally, perhaps i could agree with you on that.
But who ultimately has to make the decision and what are his/her decisions basis?

This is for another thread, for a discussion of whether we should rely on mass-majority virtual democracy, minority elitist high expert rule, objective deterministic systemic reactionist rule etc.

But can you build an advanced civilization upon these flip-floppers?

When they are tasteless, they are good carrion for carrion-eaters. If they obey, they help build those that have some ideals and control over them. Ideally they find their own ideas .

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

This is for another thread, for a discussion of whether we should rely on mass-majority virtual democracy, minority elitist high expert rule, objective deterministic systemic reactionist rule etc.

Perhaps you are right, perhaps you aren't.

When they are tasteless, they are good carrion for carrion-eaters. If they obey, they help build those that have some ideals and control over them. Ideally they find their own ideas .

But wouldn't that perpetuate the narrative of the trap we're in at this very moment?

12354

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

I was simplifying. Carrion in one way doesn't necessarily mean carrion in every way.

This changes things up, you are no longer expendable collateral prey. If you find your will to participate in ideological/fitness war then you do. You could as well enjoy other things and other pursuits having your own views located elsewhere.

The change would be in avoiding being accidentally, unwillingly selected for lawn mowing.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

The change would be in avoiding being accidentally, unwillingly selected for lawn mowing.

Are you speaking in tongues now?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Well this is not a term that might be universal I agree.

Imagine being a particular grassy element, and a bad lawn mower that approaches you and you have your wife kids or library that you would love to save but the lawn mower is getting closer and closer.

You try to reason with the mower and try to submit yourself to this omnipotent being, all in vain you are not even recognized as meaningful at that point.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Okay, Destruction of the Library of Alexandria on a lower scale.
What now?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

As I said, some choose to live in Carthage, some prefer Rome.
If none personal values or existing dimensions of culture are worth saving then why are we part of the conflict?

If you are neither of the sides you could as well stand by and ignore their power struggle, they would have greater benefit from you as a resource when they emerge victorious, not having to wipe cities and libraries etc.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

If you are neither of the sides you could as well stand by and ignore their power struggle, they would have greater benefit from you as a resource when they emerge victorious, not having to wipe cities and libraries etc.

Well, i believe there are no neutral positions in the real world,
everyone is sucked into the vortex and has to pick his side.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This would mean that there is no right, no left and no middle? Damnit! You could align just about 0.000000000000000000001 to the right and be fine.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

Well, i am 0, the problem is that other people interpret me as 1 or -1.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

That's what we are trying to overcome here.

Base state:0
Assign at will, -1 or 1 value.

This is in some sense what actually exists, but I just reduce abstractions so that participating in vortex is more apparent.

And there is a pleasant eye of the storm too.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

But what if there are other values, such as -214 or 331?
Would not the idiot make the assumption that the direction represents the value?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

We are the idiots here, or are we? . We want to have our way and don't care about current topics.

In case of mathematics, well -infinity (pure left), 0, +infinity (pure right).

I don't mean political left and right, just general now.

 

[Ex-User (9062)]

i mean idiot in the truest sense of the word.

1
usually offensive : a person affected with extreme mental retardation

2
: a foolish or stupid person

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

i mean idiot in the truest sense of the word.

Well I related to greek sources.

Do you mean that someone from the vortex would see everything as moving and himself as a stable point in space? Underlying bias of this structure. Yes that's idiocy.

 

[walfin]

One basic rule, you die in this virtual world - you die in real life. (We could replace death with a choice between becoming a slave or killing oneself)

This sounds pretty horrible.

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

This sounds pretty horrible.

Sounds horrible but happens in reality anyway. Do you have some suggestions?

 

[walfin]

Sounds horrible but happens in reality anyway. Do you have some suggestions?

Isn't this intended to be better than reality?

How about they just don't die in real life?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Did you read the thread ? It has been proposed that they instead subject to victors will.
In some areas it is better, because it is more straightforward. This virtual battlefield is relentless and has no rules, cheating is standard and violence requires fitness and has one goal, to assume control over areas, ideas, people, other resources.

Primary benefit is that reality becomes better, so that this structural battle is taken to another dimension and is more optional.