Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft? • Hacker News Board

Re: Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft?

#21

Post by pg » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 6:58 PM UTC

falsestprophet wrote: post #3

pg wrote: post #2

Do college and grad school deferments count as dodging?

According to the law, no. But, I think it may be a more complicated question than that. Most people had things they would rather be doing than wading through a jungle full of surly Vietcong. I think the fact that graduate student deferments were ended in 1969 simplifies the question. At that time a student could be deferred for the term of his undergraduate degree, but would then have to properly dodge the draft afte…

I meant, do they count for purposes of this poll? Because that is probably the option most of the 1960s equivalent of News.YC readers chose at the time.

Re: Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft?

#22

Post by pg » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 7:02 PM UTC

rms wrote: post #4

I'm curious to hear about the people that say no. Duty to your country? What makes me consider yes is the idea that war is an essentially human experience that may not exist for much longer, as we become more and more peaceful as society becomes more globalized. It is certainly not a good or romantic human experience.

war is an essentially human experience that may not exist for much longer

Not likely. It will just get more specialized. In a way, that's a return to its origins.

Re: Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft?

#23

Post by pg » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 7:09 PM UTC

bilbo0s wrote: post #8

pg wrote: post #2

Do college and grad school deferments count as dodging?

Only if you ever want to run for high office. High being a senatorial seat or the Presidency. The issue is that there is bound to be a Kerry, McCain, Murtha etc when the time comes for you to run. Meaning you would have to search for a state without Ivy league war heroes, or opt out of being an office holder. I think in our generation, though, that less heady decisions will impact our future lives and careers. I chuc…

I don't know. Once the elite encountered a generation who had practically all used recreational drugs, that ceased to be a disqualification.

But, strangely enough, it would probably be a good thing if all the clever outliers were rejected by large organizations. Then they'd go off and start things of their own, which would be good for both them and the world.

Re: Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft?

#24

Post by falsestprophet » Fri, Jul 04, 2008, 10:08 PM UTC

pg wrote: post #21

falsestprophet wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the law, no. But, I think it may be a more complicated question than that. Most people had things they would rather be doing than wading through a jungle full of surly Vietcong. I think the fact that graduate student deferments were ended in 1969 simplifies the question. At that time a student could be deferred for the term of his undergraduate degree, but would then have to properly dodge the draft afte…

I meant, do they count for purposes of this poll? Because that is probably the option most of the 1960s equivalent of News.YC readers chose at the time.

I understood what you meant. My response was less coherent than I would have liked. Let me try again.

I don't think undergraduate deferments count, because most students would graduate before the draft ended. They would not escape the decision to illegally dodge the draft or go to war.

Re: Poll: Would you have dodged the Vietnam draft?

#25

Post by rms » Sat, Jul 05, 2008, 8:02 AM UTC

pg wrote: post #22

rms wrote: post #4

I'm curious to hear about the people that say no. Duty to your country? What makes me consider yes is the idea that war is an essentially human experience that may not exist for much longer, as we become more and more peaceful as society becomes more globalized. It is certainly not a good or romantic human experience.

war is an essentially human experience that may not exist for much longer Not likely. It will just get more specialized. In a way, that's a return to its origins.

50 years from now, units of unmanned robots will be able to do a lot of if not all of the winning fighting. We're going to have ground troops in exoskeletons. If Africa isn't stable yet, you could send a mechanized army into an airport before landing your invading force. See Simon Mann's failed run into Equatorial Guinea in 2004 (funded with only $20MM) for a way to impact Africa without an army of deadly robots.

Then, once the UN gains more power as Europe gains more power the world will get a lot more stable. What do we have left to fight for? Water can be distributed to everyone. Food can be distributed to everyone. If we just stopped all the fighting then we could afford to give everyone in the world food.

Do you think humanity is going to take more than a few hundred years to reach practical utopia? I'm very optimistic.