This ain't Battle Bots

Nonsense

The president, in his most expansive public discussion on drones, defended their targeted killings as both effective and legal. He acknowledged the civilian deaths that sometimes result — a consequence that has angered many of the countries where the U.S. seeks to combat extremism — and said he grapples with that trade-off.

“For me, and those in my chain of command, these deaths will haunt us as long as we live,” he said. Before any strike, he said, “there must be near-certainty that no civilians will be killed or injured — the highest standard we can set.”

So here's a question nobody is asking yet. We're obviously well on the way to replacing the bulk of our workforce with robots.

It is time for not just economists but roboticists, like me, to ask, “How will robotic advances transform society in potentially dystopian ways?” My concern is that without serious discourse and explicit policy changes, the current path will lead to an ever more polarized economic world, with robotic technologies replacing the middle class and further distancing our society from authentic opportunity and economic justice.

And that's bad enough as it is. But add to that the fact that robots are transforming warfare in similar ways.

So then once everyone's army is made up of expendable machines, doesn't that mean the only "targets" of any value will be civilians? It would be fun if we could settle all the world's disputes via remote control, but the whole history of warfare would indicate nothing gets decided until some folks are dead. And if all the folks are non-combatants... well... I guess all war is really just organized terror. And, yes, I realize that's probably the same as it has ever been.