User Controls
The Core Tenets Of Realism
-
2024-09-25 at 5:06 AM UTCRealism is a school of thought in international relations that is predicated on the theory that states act in an anarchical system, and because they can not trust other states beyond a reasonable doubt, that it is in their best interest to go about securing the, well, security of their state. States do this by a variety of means, the most common being through development of economies and militaries.
Below are some of the assumptions of realism:
1: The international system is anarchic, meaning there is no central authority that states are beholden to.
2: The primary actors in the world are states.
3: States are rational actors, or at least attempt to act rationally to the best of their ability.
4: Human nature, and by proxy the nature of those who rule states, is self interested.
5: Conflict by any means is inevitable.
6: International Institutions and organizations are weak.
7: Security is a zero-sum game, in which the security of one nations subtracts from the security of others.
Here are some of the main tenets of realism:
1: Peace between states is maintained when power is distributed evenly across all states/actors. If one nation becomes too strong, other weaker nations may form an alliance in order to prevent said nation from gaining hegemony (Dominance over all other states). This is just 1 example of how power is balanced between states.
2: Security is a zero sum game. If one nation wishes to increase it's security, it must subtract from the security of other nations, or act in a way that prevents other nations from subtracting from it's own security.
3: The security dilemma: If a nation increases it's security, other nations that are less secure will in turn lead to them increasing their security. An example of this is the arm's race in the 1930's in the years leading up to 1939.
Other core tenets are simultaneously assumptions, as realism is at heart a theory. -
2024-09-25 at 5:48 AM UTCI've never heard of this before. IT gives me some stuff to think about in regards to modern theories on decentralized governance and technological DAO tribal economies but I think this confirms some of the thinkings of those modern theories at least in my belief that states cannot let this technology exist unregulated or economies would simply overpower their ability to control the likes of which have never been seen before but obviously this will never be allowed to happen but the only other option is to have complete government control of AI and decentralized technology which just doesn't seem possible to me
brandon is right
http://www.rochelleterman.com/ir/sites/default/files/Fearon%2Band%2BWendt%252C%2BChapter%2B3.pdfA realist version of decentralization would prioritize the preservation and expansion of state power rather than the democratization of control or the reduction of state influence. It would view decentralized technologies as tools for enhancing national security, economic power, and strategic autonomy, with a focus on state-led or state-regulated decentralization. The principles of competition, power dynamics, and state sovereignty would remain central, with decentralization serving these ends rather than challenging them.
-
2024-09-25 at 5:53 AM UTCWhen they say "AI safety", what they really mean is AI weaponization against all who oppose them.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2024-09-25 at 6:07 AM UTCgood job derailing the thread on the first post retard
I'll respond properly later but I agree with the basis that states are peers in an anarchic 'system' (more like a void), but I'm not sure I agree with the thesis that one state's security inherently detracts from another -
2024-09-25 at 6:08 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ When they say "AI safety", what they really mean is AI weaponization against all who oppose them.
I think the film "Eagle Eye" plays out what would happen if teh government cracked down and kept an iron grip on AI it would eventually determine the market forces would be better off if it killed the entire government, everyone in the military and every politician and then blow itself up and literally nobody would be upset -
2024-09-25 at 7:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by ner vegas good job derailing the thread on the first post retard
I'll respond properly later but I agree with the basis that states are peers in an anarchic 'system' (more like a void), but I'm not sure I agree with the thesis that one state's security inherently detracts from another
My thought on this is that, because resources are finite (political "power" is also finite because it is contingent on many things, namely the military and economic might of a nation), any nation's attempt to obtain greater security detracts from every other nation's ability to do the same, to varying degrees and some through more degrees of separation than others.
This is even more apparent in a globalized world where, even if a nation like Mali suffered a cut in exports, it would have effects on every other nation that is involved in international trade. -
2024-09-25 at 7:07 AM UTCIt's actually good that jedis run anything, the alternative is retarded people like OP running things. We seen how well that sort of geopol autism worked - it's the system that gave us the most horrifying wars in history.
-
2024-09-25 at 7:27 AM UTC
Originally posted by 🦄🌈 MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING - vaxxed and octoboosted 💉 (we beat covid!) 👬💕👭🍀 (🍩✊) It's actually good that jedis run anything,
Gaslighting Aldra 101
Originally posted by 🦄🌈 MORALLY SUPERIOR BEING - vaxxed and octoboosted 💉 (we beat covid!) 👬💕👭🍀 (🍩✊) the alternative is retarded people like OP running things. We seen how well that sort of geopol autism worked - it's the system that gave us the most horrifying wars in history.
Nice bait. I'll bite.
Realism isn't a system, it's a theoretical framework that attempts to explain the motivations for the actions of states and those who rule them.
Thanks for the example though.
Realism can help explain the cause of WW1 in a few ways, namely:
1: Failure to adequately balance power - After the unification of Germany, Germany's industry eventually outpaced that of Great Britain, while Austria-Hungary's territorial ambitions interfered with Russian Pan-Slavism and their influence in the Balkans. The alliance of these two nations led to a series of alliances being created, which eventually culminated in the triple alliance (Germany, Austria-Hungary, Italy) and the Triple Entente (Russia, France, UK). This effectively turned Europe into a powder keg, and when Serbia, a Pan-Slavic ally of Russia, was invaded by Austria-Hungary, the powder keg exploded.
2: Arms Race - after the unification of Germany, Germany sought to increase it's naval power for a variety of reasons, arguably the biggest being to oppose Britain's Royal Navy. This led to Great Britain increasing the size of their navy, and, in turn, also led to other power such as Japan increasing the size of their navies as well. -
2024-09-25 at 7:54 AM UTC'tism.
-
2024-09-25 at 8:15 AM UTCI always thought political science was some kinda spooky hebrew science but I guess I never really looked into it before
-
2024-09-25 at 8:32 AM UTC
Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood I always thought political science was some kinda spooky hebrew science but I guess I never really looked into it before
It is spooky, and science. Not sure about Hebrew though.
Think philosophy + history + psychology rolled up into a ball with some statistics thrown in when you get down and dirty with it. -
2024-09-25 at 8:40 AM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes 1: Peace between states is maintained when power is distributed evenly across all states/actors. If one nation becomes too strong, other weaker nations may form an alliance in order to prevent said nation from gaining hegemony (Dominance over all other states). This is just 1 example of how power is balanced between states.
2: Security is a zero sum game. If one nation wishes to increase it's security, it must subtract from the security of other nations, or act in a way that prevents other nations from subtracting from it's own security.
3: The security dilemma: If a nation increases it's security, other nations that are less secure will in turn lead to them increasing their security. An example of this is the arm's race in the 1930's in the years leading up to 1939.
Other core tenets are simultaneously assumptions, as realism is at heart a theory.
this is flawed and immature thinking often espoused by less educated people from less civilized society.
this is what russia and china been trying to tell the US that their indivisibility of their securities dont have to happen at the expenses of other countries. -
2024-09-25 at 4:10 PM UTC
Originally posted by Charles Ex Machina this is what russia and china been trying to tell the US that their indivisibility of their securities dont have to happen at the expenses of other countries.
This is the opposite of what I said.
"The security dilemma: If a nation increases it's security, other nations that are less secure will in turn lead to them increasing their security. An example of this is the arm's race in the 1930's in the years leading up to 1939." -
2024-09-26 at 3:20 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes This is the opposite of what I said.
"The security dilemma: If a nation increases it's security, other nations that are less secure will in turn lead to them increasing their security. An example of this is the arm's race in the 1930's in the years leading up to 1939."
what im saying is that ir doesnt have to.
just because your a 12 times MMA champion sitting right next to me doesnt mean i should feel insecure about it to the point i have to gang up with everyone else sitting around me to "secure" me against you. -
2024-09-29 at 7:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Charles Ex Machina what im saying is that ir doesnt have to.
just because your a 12 times MMA champion sitting right next to me doesnt mean i should feel insecure about it to the point i have to gang up with everyone else sitting around me to "secure" me against you.
It's more like if a bear is in a room with you, you'd like to have more than 1 person to help you fight it off.
Also the example I gave wasn't about alliances, it was about arms races. -
2024-09-29 at 2:01 PM UTC
Originally posted by Kingoftoes It's more like if a bear is in a room with you, you'd like to have more than 1 person to help you fight it off.
Also the example I gave wasn't about alliances, it was about arms races.
thats because you dont know the bear,
i know the bear, we spoke and turns out its a civilized bear. it doesnt attack you for nl reason like negroes do. -
2024-09-29 at 4:21 PM UTCyall niggas some fakery
breadli b workin dat bakery
start tsellin wweed straight shakey
kobe bryant straight lakery
