Ha. Ban a weapon? That's worked so well. And a weapon that anybody with a few bucks and a picture of a target can make in their garage?

We have to become used to a world where technology violates every principle we used to consider table stakes for civilization. The challenge is to build some kind of stable society out of the mess we've made.

Didn't a ban on space weapons forestall the weaponization of space by a few decades?

Didn't bans on chemical and biological weapons keep research in those fields small enough to prevent the emergence of politically potent factions with a pecuniary interest in their development?

The nuclear test ban treaties have held up well.

There is a big difference between "states openly develop these things and rich people lobby for more budget", and "states have secret programs as a hedge against noncompliance by the other side".

Ban on space weapons is an interesting point, as it was done early enough, the downsides were immediate enough, and the upsides far away enough, that it was politically doable.

Autonomous robots are much further along, relatively, and the upsides are realizable next year whereas the downsides are in the farther future. Does not seem promising.

The point is, it doesn't take a state to develop an assassin drone. It takes a website and a shipping schedule.

But it does take a state to load out an MQ-180 with hellfires that will automatically target anyone whose IMSI has been within 100 yards of someone in the "disposition matrix".

In Middle Ages Europe the Church had been trying to ban crosbows. It didn't work.

Interesting takeaway: killer drones as depicted in that famous yt video are currently deployed in the libyan conflict and explored in the Gaza conflict

Disagree. At this point I'm so disillusioned with the unbridled corruption of humanity I think I'd rather see us eliminated and replaced with machines. less harm to life on the planet in aggregate.

Safe to assume, then, that your misanthropy is not open to debate and is not shared by most of the rest of us who have families. Why even bother posting your opinion on it?

Sometimes it's better to get it out in the air so someone can reach out and provide a counter example?

You failed to, You provided a perfect example of "my family is more important than you" to the poster. The original poster may be in that stage between young adolescence before getting a partner and buying into the whole family shindig, may have tried and failed to build one, or may just be so technically disenfranchised with everyone else they read about's myopia, that they've just opted out.

You don't chastise a misanthrope. That makes it worse. You extend a helping hand to help crack at jaded sentiment to remind them there's still beauty to be found beneath the piles of refuse they may be surrounded by at the time.

I implore both of you to reexamine life as a non-traditional family builder.

> Sometimes it's better to get it out in the air so someone can reach out and provide a counter example?

HN is intended for "curious discussion". The person I responded to was not providing that.

> You don't chastise a misanthrope. That makes it worse.

I wasn't intending to make it better. It's not my responsibility to fix someone who thinks all humans deserve to die for offending nature. It's their responsibility, which probably requires help from a therapist, not an anonymous internet commenter.

> I implore both of you to reexamine life as a non-traditional family builder.

Who said I'm either traditional or a family builder?

I'm neither, but I was born with relatives, and those relatives are having children. So are my friends and many of the people around me.