13 ms·

Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

134 points by altotrees 10y ago

brudgers 10y ago
Original probably from late 2003 or early 2004. Still on Kuiper's homepage: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/ https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/
- bgribble 10y ago
  There was an earlier version of this document, without the 9/11 discussion of course, on Kuipers' homepage when I was a grad student in the early-mid 90's.
Kenji 10y ago
Wasn't the internet a direct result of government funded military research? I'm all for boycotting war but I think there is some value in that research. EDIT: Okay, he addressed that point in his article. However, I'd like to double down on that objection. In this fantastic video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg ), Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues how great projects come into being. He names 3 main drivers: 1. Religion and serving deities (mostly irrelevant in the western world, how the pyramids got built), 2. through economic incentives and 3. as a survival instinct (war). Historically, it's always been one of the three. I think military research is essential for progress and we need other paths to make sure that our nation does not go to war. The solution to war is not scientific ignorance, it's a pacifist population.
- Kototama 10y ago
  Did you read the article before commenting? This point is mentioned by the author.
  - Kenji 10y ago
    I skimmed it but I missed that point. My bad :/
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
- jt2190 10y ago
  There's a weird phenomenon in U.S. political system where it's much easier to get spending approved by congress/voters if it's classified as "military". Thus many things that could be civilian projects end up as military.
  - Kristine1975 10y ago
    That phenomenon is called "Military-Industrial Complex" ;-|
    - tosseraccount 10y ago
      Dwight Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech noted: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Furthermore, he warned "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
  - altotrees 10y ago
    I grew up in Dayton, Ohio around a relatively major Air Force Base. The presence of contractors of every stripe (Northrop, Oracle, Booz Allen, General Dynamics), and the stories I would hear about the projects and funds they were approved for were mind-boggling. That is part of the reason I think this stance is so admirable and interesting. I do not think defense spending is inherently negative. But even for those who do believe that in a strong way, I think it would be hard to leave those opportunities on the table and walk away.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  >3. as a survival instinct (war) Survival instinct and war are two separate concepts, at least when it comes to recent history and western countries.
  - Trombone12 10y ago
    They are well and truly separate because it is only the losing side that are forced to innovate drastically, that is only the side facing and existential threat. I also think that these factors are mostly important for the _adoption_ and development of innovative ideas. I don't think going to work trying to invent a better radar is magically more efficient during wartime when you worry about your family being killed rather than during peace time.
- Spooky23 10y ago
  At the end of the day, you need to sleep at night. I respect people who listen to their conscience. Generals always prepare to fight the last war. As we move away from 20th century nation state conflict, that means the successor to the current counter-insurgency conflict. There's a pretty clear implication to that, which removes many of the comfortable abstractions that blowing up Soviet tanks came with.
  - bgribble 10y ago
    There's a popular Quaker anecdote in the OP which is worth quoting in full: "Many years ago, when William Penn converted to Quakerism and pacifism, he was troubled by the thought of having to give up the sword that he wore, a great honor at the time. He asked George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, what he should do. Fox told him, 'William, wear thy sword as long as thee can.'" It's ultimately the choice of each individual to determine when they can no longer bear their sword.
- lr4444lr 10y ago
  Not sure why you were downvoted for this, especially your last sentence. I think it's an important perspective, and as it relates to the author, if he _had_ helped "build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets", that might have greatly helped lessen civilian deaths during war. He says "I will not devote my life's work toward making warfare more effective". Sticking to principle is admirable, but choosing not to use one's intellectual gifts in ways that could reduce innocent suffering is also a choice with consequences. It's just a lot easier for people to ignore "how many I could have prevented from dying" than "how many my work has been the cause of their death." Mikhail Kalashnikov had a much humbler perspective when people asked him about the AK-47 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconnolly http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconn...).
  - mcguire 10y ago
    This same argument supports your favorite NSA surveillance program. In fact, the assumption you are making is that the use of violence is a constant, but the effect of smart cruise missiles, etc., is to make it more palatable and attractive.
    - sitkack 10y ago
      There is a Jevon's Paradox with the use of drones. Look at the total hours flown thus far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
sillysaurus3 10y ago
"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." - Robert Heinlein This quote stuck with me, possibly due to the force of its presentation rather than its merits. I thought it would be interesting to present the other side of the debate to HN and open it up to comment. I'm undecided. Heinlein's viewpoint and the author's viewpoint are polar opposites. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.
- qntty 10y ago
  But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine): "In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."
  - sillysaurus3 10y ago
    You're right. Apologies for misrepresenting Benjamin's position. (He's correct, I think.)
  - ufmace 10y ago
    I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so. That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.
wtbob 10y ago
> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. Truly, a fine thing to conscientiously object to. > In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. That is a detachment from reality so extreme that it's difficult to imagine that he is able to tie his shoes in the morning. Some folks say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; that's true, but only because the competent turn to it before it's their last choice. Yes, violence is wrong and evil; yes, it is brutal and merciless. It is horrible to see violence, and more horrible still to engage in it. But — and this is the key point — violence is often unavoidable: the choice is not between violence and nonviolence (that choice is easy!) but between violence now and violence later. Which is worse? That's hard to say. The only thing which enables pacifists to survive is non-pacifists who protect them. Calmly reasoning with (or emotionally pleading with) someone intent on stealing from, raping or killing one does not succeed with anywhere near the reliability of of stopping him with violent force. It's the police and the military which dissuade one's fellow citizens and external powers, respectively, from exercising violence upon one. 'I won't take up arms myself, but I will enjoy the peace and security provided by those who do' makes as much moral sense as 'I won't kill animals, but I'll eat meat.' It's a free country; he's free to free-load on the sacrifice and hard work of his fellow-citizens, and we're free to think that behaviour fundamentally irresponsible.
- mikeash 10y ago
  What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was imperfect. > You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason. Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it. I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence & pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.
kriro 10y ago
In Germany (and Japan according to Wikipedia) there's the concept of "Zivilklausel" which is a pledge by an entire university to only conduct civilian research. The dual use problem remains and there's some loopholes but by and large the universities that pledge to it follow it. Here's a link of participating institutions (in German but mostly a list): http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklauseln http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklausel... Notably 6 states have that clause in their university laws. Since I live in one of them I have only conducted civilian research by default (yay?).
- actionwords 10y ago
  Germany and Japan you say? Would that have anything to do with BOTH of these countries being forcibly pacified and their constitutions being almost entirely written by foreigners? I think so. It isn't a good thing.
maxaf 10y ago
Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence. Those who reach for violence as a commonly used tool will continue to do so, with or without advanced researchers at their side, albeit with cruder tools of warfare in case researchers do decide to walk away en masse. Perhaps a more impactful approach would be to resist the use of violence per se, not the tools of war. I can see room for research into non-lethal weaponry that can be sold to militaries and police forces as a turn-key, easy to use solution which, on one hand, leaves room for violent yet non-lethal action, and on the other hand doesn't exact a cost in human lives during conflict resolution. Tasers are a crude prototype preview of what might be possible. I'm thinking more along the lines of perfecting a non-lethal weapon that doesn't electrocute a person while running the risk of stopping their heart entirely. That doesn't count as non-lethal! In short, the author's stance is commendable if short sighted. IMHO there are better ways to resist violence than simply making a one-man stand.
- chrisseaton 10y ago
  Is non-lethal weaponry actually any safer overall? Say you had some hypothetical situation where you did decide it was morally and legally justified to use force to stop something happening, like a genocide in a civil war or something like that. How much longer would it take to end the genocide, and how many more people would be hurt and have their means of supporting themselves destroyed if everyone's running around with a non-lethal weapon like a taser or something, compared to rifles? To a certain extent, when you decide that you unfortunately must use violence, I think it can be better to use a lot of violence very quickly and very well targeted, rather than messing around for ages using other means.
  - maxaf 10y ago
    Agreed. You're right, there are cases when immediate and overwhelming intervention is justified no matter the human cost. I think, however, that such cases have become more rare as our civilization has matured (as little as it has!) beyond total war and unfettered genocide. On the other hand, one wonders why the interventionist US government doesn't intervene in what obviously are genocides in Africa, which still seem to happen with sickening regularity. I suppose my original point was mostly about the glaring lack of effective and side effect free non lethal weapons, while a plethora of traditional person killers remain widely available for a low price.
dzdt 10y ago
I took military funding for graduate school -- a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. My reasoning was I was studying pure mathematics, and I knew my work had zero possibility of military applications. So by taking their money I was diverting it to purely peaceful purposes. And their funding was a bit higher than the NSF fellowship, so that choice dovetailed nicely with self-interest. It would have been a harder choice if my work did have potential military application. I don't know if I would have had the backbone of the linked professor. I admire his conviction.
- raziel2701 10y ago
  Did you have to spend summers at DoD working for them? How was it?
  - dzdt 10y ago
    No, the NDSEG just pays for your grad school and provides a stipend. No extra requirements outside of the degree program.
TerryADavis 10y ago
Fraiser thinks he can play me. Fraiser you are a dumb shit nigger who doesn't know what a random number is.
bgribble 10y ago
Dr. Kuipers was my grad school advisor at the University of Texas. I found his adherence to principles of pacifism and nonviolence, rooted in Quakerism, to be very inspirational. Certainly, as a graduate student, I would have had an easier time if we could take DARPA money instead of only applying for grants from civilian institutions (NSF, NASA, etc). I don't regret it. Yes, many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations. But people like Kuipers who take principled positions of nonviolence help create a vision of a society where that's not true any more. We may never get there, but that doesn't matter. There's a definitely similarity between Kuipers and Richard Stallman in that regard... taking a strong principled position, even if it's not "practical", can be very important. And both of them came out of the MIT AI lab at about the same time :) Kuipers trivia: he implemented the Common LISP "print" facility's ability to render numbers as Roman numerals, as a joke, and submitted it to Guy Steele, who was working on "Comon LISP: The Language". Steele included it in the book and now it's part of LISP forever.
- andremendes 10y ago
  I have never heard of Quakerism before and found it to be very inspirational too! I also see similarity between Stallman and Kuipers and I think it's because they both are very coherent to their beliefs. They strongly hold personal values and apply them in day-to-day living, they are able to professionally reproduce their core, personal beliefs.
  - sitkack 10y ago
    I think of it as the American version of a Christian-Buddhist sect. Look for a "Society of Friends" meeting in your area.
- simonebrunozzi 10y ago
  What are the principles behind getting DARPA grants?
- sitkack 10y ago
  > many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations. If this is true, it is only true because that is where the budget has been. The military doesn't magically beget better more efficient engineering. Look at the wikipedia page for (D)ARPA, there has been a long fight over what it should fund, war or more broadly applicable research. Some of the defense research labs fund quite a bit of renewable energy, carbon mitigation, etc. How much scientific advancement could we have paid for with the trillions we spent on wars in the middle east?
jtth 10y ago
I don't understand. The funding sources he does accept can still be funded by defense groups if they're cruising through proposals. It's ultimately the same pot of money with the same reporting due to the government who will find out the same things from the same sources. Just because you didn't get your funding directly from ONR doesn't mean the DoD isn't funding your research.
anonymous950 10y ago
(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered. -- Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945
- Retric 10y ago
  Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World still catching on.
  - zeveb 10y ago
    > Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World still catching on. Reality's still catching on … war is, as Clausewitz noted, diplomacy carried on by other means: just as diplomacy is a way to achieve a condition in which one's goals are met, so too is war (albeit a spectacularly unpleasant and evil way). Sometimes the good of one's goals outweighs the evil of war; sometimes it doesn't. One certainly can control, or at the very least shape, what others do. If not, why do we have laws? Why do we have RFCs? Why do we have common languages?
avukich 10y ago
Too bad the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc don't follow the same belief system. Good luck negotiating with them.
- dragonbonheur 10y ago
  The terrorists (who were only hypocritically Islamic) who did 9/11 were Saudis. America attacked Iraq in retaliation using massive military force. What was your argument again? Don't bother, I'm not interested.
  - avukich 10y ago
    Why would you be interested? Why debate anything? Just jump in and make a comment and then leave because that is the way it should be. I mean that is how all things accomplished right? The point is that believing that all problems can be solved in non-violent ways is unrealistic. The terrorists who will gladly murder any man, woman, or child to further whatever the hell it is that they are trying to further have never and will never just stop being violent to negotiate. The only way to deal with people who are that radical is through violent means. Oh and maybe you should get your facts straight. America did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in retaliation. America attacked Iraq because in theory there were WMDs there (I will not argue the legitimacy of that because clearly that wasn't the case and in hindsight that was an awful move).
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - dragonbonheur 10y ago
      Your argument falls apart precisely because of the violent and boneheaded nature of American governments. America unleashes its military without thinking of the consequences and there is no excuse for it.
      - 10y ago
yodsanklai 10y ago
I did a postdoc in the US which was funded by a US navy grant. I remember that my supervisor told me that even if our research doesn't lead to any practical application, at least it won't help to kill anyone.
- iso-8859-1 10y ago
  If you had your name in your profile, I could look up your publications...
avukich 10y ago
Couldn't a very good argument be made that military research has actually prevented a LOT of conflicts? Think of what may have happened if the Soviet Union and US didn't both have large nuclear arsenals. There is a very real possibility that there would have been a WW3 between NATO and the Soviet Bloc without M.A.D.
johngalt 10y ago
Science funding explained http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1522 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1522
nxzero 10y ago
Taken to an extreme, everything is unhealthy. If you're going to say no to funding, you might as well say no to knowledge, tech, etc. - that has been gained from such funding. Are you prepared to stop washing your hands? It's theorized that the modern practice of washing hands came from battle field surgery.
- throwanem 10y ago
  I don't disagree with you, exactly, but whoever theorizes that needs to study recent history; Lister was never a battlefield surgeon.
  - nxzero 10y ago
    It is my understanding that Lister used the Franco-Prussian War as the proving grounds for his research.
- themodelplumber 10y ago
  > Taken to an extreme, everything is unhealthy. This really needs context in order to be considered a relevant phrase. I've had close friends use it on me when I lost over 30% of my obese bodyweight on a diet. Others use it to effectively say, "healthy living is unhealthy," which is of course false. I believe such a phrase often comes from a place of fear, as do arguments like, "if you are going to stop doing A, you might as well stop doing B, which also comes from the same roots as A!" Points for imagination but humanity doesn't really hold such requirements for us.
- Retra 10y ago
  You criticize taking things to an extreme and then immediately follow that up by taking things to some absurd extreme?
  - nxzero 10y ago
    Right, exactly, to make the point it literally is unhealthy.
jpmattia 10y ago
> And as I watched my colleagues dealing with DARPA's demands for reports, PI meetings, bake-offs, delays and reductions in promised funding, and other hassles, I began to wonder whether I hadn't gotten the best side of the deal after all. Applies to the startup world as well. I've done startups in both Silicon Valley and Washington DC, and I have to say: The time commitment is not as recognized as it should be. Folks that build their companies around getting govt funding tend to get good at getting govt funding, which is different from getting good at building product.
leecarraher 10y ago
non-violence or pacifism aside, military grants are loaded with mountains of mind numbing paperwork and bureaucracy ...pass.
mikeash 10y ago
It's weird how a college professor refusing to take military funding is super controversial, but if a programmer decides to work at, say, Apple instead of a defense contractor, nobody bats an eye. The comments here are full of people criticizing this guy's position and saying that helping your country's military is better. How many of you are helping the military? Does this principle apply to everybody, or just college professors? Or is it simply that he's public about the reasons for his choice, so people feel a need to argue with it?
- Grishnakh 10y ago
  A programmer works at Apple instead of a defense contractor because: - Apple pays a lot better - Having Apple on your resume is far more prestigious (in fact, it's probably one of the most prestigious names to have on there, and I say that as someone who does not like Apple too much and generally sneers at Apple fans) - Defense contractors are infamous for treating employees somewhat lousily (see: furloughs) In fact, I would seriously bat an eye at someone who, with offer letters from both, chose to take a job at a defense contractor rather than Apple. The main thing the defense contractor job has going for it is the working hours are likely to be standard 9-5 with little or no overtime (as that gets billed to a government contract, so you're generally not allowed to work overtime without special approval). At high-profile places like Apple, unpaid overtime is generally expected to some degree.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    All true, but for many people I know there is also the reason that they don't want to have anything to do with the military.
    - Grishnakh 10y ago
      I'm just pointing out that that's a really lame comparison. It's like asking why you would choose to go to college and get a high-paying job instead of just working at the grocery store (that might be exaggerating a bit). No one is going to come down to a choice of defense contractor vs. Apple. They aren't even located in the same place: defense contractors have no presence in Silicon Valley that I've ever heard of. So you can't even make a choice between the two without considering a cross-country move (military stuff tends to be concentrated on the east coast), though there's a bunch in Phoenix too. A better comparison would be defense contractor vs. working at some small generic commercial company. They can be located near each other, both are likely to have lousy pay for engineers/programmers, and neither is going to look that great on a resume (actually, depending on what you work on, the defense contractor will probably look better).
mirekrusin 10y ago
It's an interesting problem. Doesn't it mean that in long run, with this set of mind, military will be filled in by people who "care less" about killing people - therefore making the world "worse"? Maybe having in military people with author's principles is what we need the most?
- mmagin 10y ago
  Fortunately, ideas and attitudes are contagious between groups of people.
jonjacky 10y ago
Also pertinent: Terry Winograd's Thoughts On Military Funding (1984, with a postscript from 2002): http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2001/Summer/tw.html/ http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/200...
george_ciobanu 10y ago
Tell Iran about nonviolent methods. To have an overwhelmingly powerful military in the right hands (Bush Jr. was not the right hands) is a big safeguard against most crazy nations.
riot504 10y ago
Star Trek provides the setting for an ideal military; we are currently far from an ideal military as the best and brightest leave due to a variety of reasons. Yes, weapons research is needed because you often encounter violent species but research and exploration are above all; a thirst for knowledge is more important than profit. In general a culture (society) we seek money over knowledge. Certain individuals seek out knowledge with the goal of gaining more money. I am not saying all of us are like this but take society as a whole and a large percentage learn solely to earn more money, not for the pleasure in learning.
banku_brougham 10y ago
The right way to excercise your conscience and be an example for others. Thank you for sharing this, I hadn't seen it.

134 points by altotrees 10y ago

Original probably from late 2003 or early 2004. Still on Kuiper's homepage: https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/ https://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/

bgribble 10y ago
There was an earlier version of this document, without the 9/11 discussion of course, on Kuipers' homepage when I was a grad student in the early-mid 90's.

Kenji 10y ago

Wasn't the internet a direct result of government funded military research? I'm all for boycotting war but I think there is some value in that research. EDIT: Okay, he addressed that point in his article. However, I'd like to double down on that objection. In this fantastic video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg ), Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues how great projects come into being. He names 3 main drivers: 1. Religion and serving deities (mostly irrelevant in the western world, how the pyramids got built), 2. through economic incentives and 3. as a survival instinct (war). Historically, it's always been one of the three. I think military research is essential for progress and we need other paths to make sure that our nation does not go to war. The solution to war is not scientific ignorance, it's a pacifist population.

Kototama 10y ago
Did you read the article before commenting? This point is mentioned by the author.
- Kenji 10y ago
  I skimmed it but I missed that point. My bad :/
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
jt2190 10y ago
There's a weird phenomenon in U.S. political system where it's much easier to get spending approved by congress/voters if it's classified as "military". Thus many things that could be civilian projects end up as military.
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  That phenomenon is called "Military-Industrial Complex" ;-|
  - tosseraccount 10y ago
    Dwight Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech noted: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together." Furthermore, he warned "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."
- altotrees 10y ago
  I grew up in Dayton, Ohio around a relatively major Air Force Base. The presence of contractors of every stripe (Northrop, Oracle, Booz Allen, General Dynamics), and the stories I would hear about the projects and funds they were approved for were mind-boggling. That is part of the reason I think this stance is so admirable and interesting. I do not think defense spending is inherently negative. But even for those who do believe that in a strong way, I think it would be hard to leave those opportunities on the table and walk away.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>3. as a survival instinct (war) Survival instinct and war are two separate concepts, at least when it comes to recent history and western countries.
- Trombone12 10y ago
  They are well and truly separate because it is only the losing side that are forced to innovate drastically, that is only the side facing and existential threat. I also think that these factors are mostly important for the _adoption_ and development of innovative ideas. I don't think going to work trying to invent a better radar is magically more efficient during wartime when you worry about your family being killed rather than during peace time.
Spooky23 10y ago
At the end of the day, you need to sleep at night. I respect people who listen to their conscience. Generals always prepare to fight the last war. As we move away from 20th century nation state conflict, that means the successor to the current counter-insurgency conflict. There's a pretty clear implication to that, which removes many of the comfortable abstractions that blowing up Soviet tanks came with.
- bgribble 10y ago
  There's a popular Quaker anecdote in the OP which is worth quoting in full: "Many years ago, when William Penn converted to Quakerism and pacifism, he was troubled by the thought of having to give up the sword that he wore, a great honor at the time. He asked George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, what he should do. Fox told him, 'William, wear thy sword as long as thee can.'" It's ultimately the choice of each individual to determine when they can no longer bear their sword.
lr4444lr 10y ago
Not sure why you were downvoted for this, especially your last sentence. I think it's an important perspective, and as it relates to the author, if he _had_ helped "build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets", that might have greatly helped lessen civilian deaths during war. He says "I will not devote my life's work toward making warfare more effective". Sticking to principle is admirable, but choosing not to use one's intellectual gifts in ways that could reduce innocent suffering is also a choice with consequences. It's just a lot easier for people to ignore "how many I could have prevented from dying" than "how many my work has been the cause of their death." Mikhail Kalashnikov had a much humbler perspective when people asked him about the AK-47 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconnolly http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconn...).
- mcguire 10y ago
  This same argument supports your favorite NSA surveillance program. In fact, the assumption you are making is that the use of violence is a constant, but the effect of smart cruise missiles, etc., is to make it more palatable and attractive.
  - sitkack 10y ago
    There is a Jevon's Paradox with the use of drones. Look at the total hours flown thus far. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

sillysaurus3 10y ago

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue -- and thoroughly immoral -- doctrine that violence never settles anything I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler would referee. Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forgot this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and their freedoms." - Robert Heinlein This quote stuck with me, possibly due to the force of its presentation rather than its merits. I thought it would be interesting to present the other side of the debate to HN and open it up to comment. I'm undecided. Heinlein's viewpoint and the author's viewpoint are polar opposites. Perhaps the truth is somewhere in the middle.

qntty 10y ago
But the OP never says that violence never settles anything, his position is more nuanced than that (emphasis mine): "In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces."
- sillysaurus3 10y ago
  You're right. Apologies for misrepresenting Benjamin's position. (He's correct, I think.)
- ufmace 10y ago
  I honestly find his position kind of vague and impractical. He does recognize that the perpetrators of 9/11 and other such attacks should be brought to justice, but suggests that it be done through non-violent means. I would very much like to know exactly what non-violent means he thinks might have been effective at apprehending the Al-Quada bigwigs from a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. When the people who need to be brought to justice are in a nation that is friendly to them and entirely unconcerned about world opinion, economic sanctions, and other such tools of international diplomacy, I fail to see what realistic options there are besides violence. I may sound snarky at times, but seriously, if anyone has any realistic and practical ideas, please say so. That's more what bothers me about Pacifism - being totally unconcerned with the realities of the world. They just say "find a non-violent way to do it" and then leave somebody else to figure out how to do that. I think it only applies in a few limited situations, and in general, pure Pacifism means you will be dominated by anybody who is willing to use violence to achieve their goals.

wtbob 10y ago

> My position has its roots in the Vietnam War, when I was a conscientious objector Ah yes, the Vietnam War, a last-ditch attempt to preserve some freedom and democracy (albeit imperfect) from a bloodthirsty regime which killed tens or hundreds of thousands of people, not in war but in post-war executions. Truly, a fine thing to conscientiously object to. > In short, I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. That is a detachment from reality so extreme that it's difficult to imagine that he is able to tie his shoes in the morning. Some folks say that violence is the last refuge of the incompetent; that's true, but only because the competent turn to it before it's their last choice. Yes, violence is wrong and evil; yes, it is brutal and merciless. It is horrible to see violence, and more horrible still to engage in it. But — and this is the key point — violence is often unavoidable: the choice is not between violence and nonviolence (that choice is easy!) but between violence now and violence later. Which is worse? That's hard to say. The only thing which enables pacifists to survive is non-pacifists who protect them. Calmly reasoning with (or emotionally pleading with) someone intent on stealing from, raping or killing one does not succeed with anywhere near the reliability of of stopping him with violent force. It's the police and the military which dissuade one's fellow citizens and external powers, respectively, from exercising violence upon one. 'I won't take up arms myself, but I will enjoy the peace and security provided by those who do' makes as much moral sense as 'I won't kill animals, but I'll eat meat.' It's a free country; he's free to free-load on the sacrifice and hard work of his fellow-citizens, and we're free to think that behaviour fundamentally irresponsible.

mikeash 10y ago
What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > What freedom and democracy? Our side was a ruthless dictatorship too. It was less bad, and had potential to be more good. As I noted, it was imperfect. > You make a good point about violence sometimes begin necessary. But making that point in the context of Vietnam is weird. It's the poster child for unnecessary wars, and for good reason. Thanks for your credit; I really appreciate it. I completely disagree that Vietnam was an unnecessary war, but it's perhaps indicative of the extent to which its supposed lack of need has become common wisdom that folks have taken issue not with my broader points about violence & pacifists but with the narrow point of Vietnam.

kriro 10y ago

In Germany (and Japan according to Wikipedia) there's the concept of "Zivilklausel" which is a pledge by an entire university to only conduct civilian research. The dual use problem remains and there's some loopholes but by and large the universities that pledge to it follow it. Here's a link of participating institutions (in German but mostly a list): http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklauseln http://www.zivilklausel.de/index.php/bestehende-zivilklausel... Notably 6 states have that clause in their university laws. Since I live in one of them I have only conducted civilian research by default (yay?).

actionwords 10y ago
Germany and Japan you say? Would that have anything to do with BOTH of these countries being forcibly pacified and their constitutions being almost entirely written by foreigners? I think so. It isn't a good thing.

maxaf 10y ago

Depriving the world's militaries of research brains isn't going to prevent or lessen violence. Those who reach for violence as a commonly used tool will continue to do so, with or without advanced researchers at their side, albeit with cruder tools of warfare in case researchers do decide to walk away en masse. Perhaps a more impactful approach would be to resist the use of violence per se, not the tools of war. I can see room for research into non-lethal weaponry that can be sold to militaries and police forces as a turn-key, easy to use solution which, on one hand, leaves room for violent yet non-lethal action, and on the other hand doesn't exact a cost in human lives during conflict resolution. Tasers are a crude prototype preview of what might be possible. I'm thinking more along the lines of perfecting a non-lethal weapon that doesn't electrocute a person while running the risk of stopping their heart entirely. That doesn't count as non-lethal! In short, the author's stance is commendable if short sighted. IMHO there are better ways to resist violence than simply making a one-man stand.

chrisseaton 10y ago
Is non-lethal weaponry actually any safer overall? Say you had some hypothetical situation where you did decide it was morally and legally justified to use force to stop something happening, like a genocide in a civil war or something like that. How much longer would it take to end the genocide, and how many more people would be hurt and have their means of supporting themselves destroyed if everyone's running around with a non-lethal weapon like a taser or something, compared to rifles? To a certain extent, when you decide that you unfortunately must use violence, I think it can be better to use a lot of violence very quickly and very well targeted, rather than messing around for ages using other means.
- maxaf 10y ago
  Agreed. You're right, there are cases when immediate and overwhelming intervention is justified no matter the human cost. I think, however, that such cases have become more rare as our civilization has matured (as little as it has!) beyond total war and unfettered genocide. On the other hand, one wonders why the interventionist US government doesn't intervene in what obviously are genocides in Africa, which still seem to happen with sickening regularity. I suppose my original point was mostly about the glaring lack of effective and side effect free non lethal weapons, while a plethora of traditional person killers remain widely available for a low price.

dzdt 10y ago

I took military funding for graduate school -- a National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) Fellowship. My reasoning was I was studying pure mathematics, and I knew my work had zero possibility of military applications. So by taking their money I was diverting it to purely peaceful purposes. And their funding was a bit higher than the NSF fellowship, so that choice dovetailed nicely with self-interest. It would have been a harder choice if my work did have potential military application. I don't know if I would have had the backbone of the linked professor. I admire his conviction.

raziel2701 10y ago
Did you have to spend summers at DoD working for them? How was it?
- dzdt 10y ago
  No, the NDSEG just pays for your grad school and provides a stipend. No extra requirements outside of the degree program.

TerryADavis 10y ago

Fraiser thinks he can play me. Fraiser you are a dumb shit nigger who doesn't know what a random number is.

bgribble 10y ago

Dr. Kuipers was my grad school advisor at the University of Texas. I found his adherence to principles of pacifism and nonviolence, rooted in Quakerism, to be very inspirational. Certainly, as a graduate student, I would have had an easier time if we could take DARPA money instead of only applying for grants from civilian institutions (NSF, NASA, etc). I don't regret it. Yes, many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations. But people like Kuipers who take principled positions of nonviolence help create a vision of a society where that's not true any more. We may never get there, but that doesn't matter. There's a definitely similarity between Kuipers and Richard Stallman in that regard... taking a strong principled position, even if it's not "practical", can be very important. And both of them came out of the MIT AI lab at about the same time :) Kuipers trivia: he implemented the Common LISP "print" facility's ability to render numbers as Roman numerals, as a joke, and submitted it to Guy Steele, who was working on "Comon LISP: The Language". Steele included it in the book and now it's part of LISP forever.

andremendes 10y ago
I have never heard of Quakerism before and found it to be very inspirational too! I also see similarity between Stallman and Kuipers and I think it's because they both are very coherent to their beliefs. They strongly hold personal values and apply them in day-to-day living, they are able to professionally reproduce their core, personal beliefs.
- sitkack 10y ago
  I think of it as the American version of a Christian-Buddhist sect. Look for a "Society of Friends" meeting in your area.
simonebrunozzi 10y ago
What are the principles behind getting DARPA grants?
sitkack 10y ago
> many (most?) of our technological advances have come from military motivations. If this is true, it is only true because that is where the budget has been. The military doesn't magically beget better more efficient engineering. Look at the wikipedia page for (D)ARPA, there has been a long fight over what it should fund, war or more broadly applicable research. Some of the defense research labs fund quite a bit of renewable energy, carbon mitigation, etc. How much scientific advancement could we have paid for with the trillions we spent on wars in the middle east?

jtth 10y ago

I don't understand. The funding sources he does accept can still be funded by defense groups if they're cruising through proposals. It's ultimately the same pot of money with the same reporting due to the government who will find out the same things from the same sources. Just because you didn't get your funding directly from ONR doesn't mean the DoD isn't funding your research.

anonymous950 10y ago

(v) Pacifism. The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to the taking of life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists whose real though unadmitted motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration of totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writings of younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States. Moreover they do not as a rule condemn violence as such, but only violence used in defence of western countries. The Russians, unlike the British, are not blamed for defending themselves by warlike means, and indeed all pacifist propaganda of this type avoids mention of Russia or China. It is not claimed, again, that the Indians should abjure violence in their struggle against the British. Pacifist literature abounds with equivocal remarks which, if they mean anything, appear to mean that statesmen of the type of Hitler are preferable to those of the type of Churchill, and that violence is perhaps excusable if it is violent enough. After the fall of France, the French pacifists, faced by a real choice which their English colleagues have not had to make, mostly went over to the Nazis, and in England there appears to have been some small overlap of membership between the Peace Pledge Union and the Blackshirts. Pacifist writers have written in praise of Carlyle, one of the intellectual fathers of Fascism. All in all it is difficult not to feel that pacifism, as it appears among a section of the intelligentsia, is secretly inspired by an admiration for power and successful cruelty. The mistake was made of pinning this emotion to Hitler, but it could easily be retransfered. -- Orwell, Notes on Nationalism, 1945

Retric 10y ago
Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World still catching on.
- zeveb 10y ago
  > Counter argument; pacifism accepts you don't control other countries. World still catching on. Reality's still catching on … war is, as Clausewitz noted, diplomacy carried on by other means: just as diplomacy is a way to achieve a condition in which one's goals are met, so too is war (albeit a spectacularly unpleasant and evil way). Sometimes the good of one's goals outweighs the evil of war; sometimes it doesn't. One certainly can control, or at the very least shape, what others do. If not, why do we have laws? Why do we have RFCs? Why do we have common languages?

avukich 10y ago

Too bad the Islamic terrorists who perpetrated 9/11, Paris attacks, Brussels attacks, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc don't follow the same belief system. Good luck negotiating with them.

dragonbonheur 10y ago
The terrorists (who were only hypocritically Islamic) who did 9/11 were Saudis. America attacked Iraq in retaliation using massive military force. What was your argument again? Don't bother, I'm not interested.
- avukich 10y ago
  Why would you be interested? Why debate anything? Just jump in and make a comment and then leave because that is the way it should be. I mean that is how all things accomplished right? The point is that believing that all problems can be solved in non-violent ways is unrealistic. The terrorists who will gladly murder any man, woman, or child to further whatever the hell it is that they are trying to further have never and will never just stop being violent to negotiate. The only way to deal with people who are that radical is through violent means. Oh and maybe you should get your facts straight. America did not attack Iraq in retaliation for 9/11. America attacked Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in retaliation. America attacked Iraq because in theory there were WMDs there (I will not argue the legitimacy of that because clearly that wasn't the case and in hindsight that was an awful move).
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - dragonbonheur 10y ago
    Your argument falls apart precisely because of the violent and boneheaded nature of American governments. America unleashes its military without thinking of the consequences and there is no excuse for it.
    - 10y ago

yodsanklai 10y ago

I did a postdoc in the US which was funded by a US navy grant. I remember that my supervisor told me that even if our research doesn't lead to any practical application, at least it won't help to kill anyone.

iso-8859-1 10y ago
If you had your name in your profile, I could look up your publications...

avukich 10y ago

Couldn't a very good argument be made that military research has actually prevented a LOT of conflicts? Think of what may have happened if the Soviet Union and US didn't both have large nuclear arsenals. There is a very real possibility that there would have been a WW3 between NATO and the Soviet Bloc without M.A.D.

johngalt 10y ago

Science funding explained http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1522 http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=1522

nxzero 10y ago

Taken to an extreme, everything is unhealthy. If you're going to say no to funding, you might as well say no to knowledge, tech, etc. - that has been gained from such funding. Are you prepared to stop washing your hands? It's theorized that the modern practice of washing hands came from battle field surgery.

throwanem 10y ago
I don't disagree with you, exactly, but whoever theorizes that needs to study recent history; Lister was never a battlefield surgeon.
- nxzero 10y ago
  It is my understanding that Lister used the Franco-Prussian War as the proving grounds for his research.
themodelplumber 10y ago
> Taken to an extreme, everything is unhealthy. This really needs context in order to be considered a relevant phrase. I've had close friends use it on me when I lost over 30% of my obese bodyweight on a diet. Others use it to effectively say, "healthy living is unhealthy," which is of course false. I believe such a phrase often comes from a place of fear, as do arguments like, "if you are going to stop doing A, you might as well stop doing B, which also comes from the same roots as A!" Points for imagination but humanity doesn't really hold such requirements for us.
Retra 10y ago
You criticize taking things to an extreme and then immediately follow that up by taking things to some absurd extreme?
- nxzero 10y ago
  Right, exactly, to make the point it literally is unhealthy.

jpmattia 10y ago

> And as I watched my colleagues dealing with DARPA's demands for reports, PI meetings, bake-offs, delays and reductions in promised funding, and other hassles, I began to wonder whether I hadn't gotten the best side of the deal after all. Applies to the startup world as well. I've done startups in both Silicon Valley and Washington DC, and I have to say: The time commitment is not as recognized as it should be. Folks that build their companies around getting govt funding tend to get good at getting govt funding, which is different from getting good at building product.

leecarraher 10y ago

non-violence or pacifism aside, military grants are loaded with mountains of mind numbing paperwork and bureaucracy ...pass.

mikeash 10y ago

It's weird how a college professor refusing to take military funding is super controversial, but if a programmer decides to work at, say, Apple instead of a defense contractor, nobody bats an eye. The comments here are full of people criticizing this guy's position and saying that helping your country's military is better. How many of you are helping the military? Does this principle apply to everybody, or just college professors? Or is it simply that he's public about the reasons for his choice, so people feel a need to argue with it?

Grishnakh 10y ago
A programmer works at Apple instead of a defense contractor because: - Apple pays a lot better - Having Apple on your resume is far more prestigious (in fact, it's probably one of the most prestigious names to have on there, and I say that as someone who does not like Apple too much and generally sneers at Apple fans) - Defense contractors are infamous for treating employees somewhat lousily (see: furloughs) In fact, I would seriously bat an eye at someone who, with offer letters from both, chose to take a job at a defense contractor rather than Apple. The main thing the defense contractor job has going for it is the working hours are likely to be standard 9-5 with little or no overtime (as that gets billed to a government contract, so you're generally not allowed to work overtime without special approval). At high-profile places like Apple, unpaid overtime is generally expected to some degree.
- mikeash 10y ago
  All true, but for many people I know there is also the reason that they don't want to have anything to do with the military.
  - Grishnakh 10y ago
    I'm just pointing out that that's a really lame comparison. It's like asking why you would choose to go to college and get a high-paying job instead of just working at the grocery store (that might be exaggerating a bit). No one is going to come down to a choice of defense contractor vs. Apple. They aren't even located in the same place: defense contractors have no presence in Silicon Valley that I've ever heard of. So you can't even make a choice between the two without considering a cross-country move (military stuff tends to be concentrated on the east coast), though there's a bunch in Phoenix too. A better comparison would be defense contractor vs. working at some small generic commercial company. They can be located near each other, both are likely to have lousy pay for engineers/programmers, and neither is going to look that great on a resume (actually, depending on what you work on, the defense contractor will probably look better).

mirekrusin 10y ago

It's an interesting problem. Doesn't it mean that in long run, with this set of mind, military will be filled in by people who "care less" about killing people - therefore making the world "worse"? Maybe having in military people with author's principles is what we need the most?

mmagin 10y ago
Fortunately, ideas and attitudes are contagious between groups of people.

jonjacky 10y ago

Also pertinent: Terry Winograd's Thoughts On Military Funding (1984, with a postscript from 2002): http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/2001/Summer/tw.html/ http://cpsr.org/prevsite/publications/newsletters/issues/200...

george_ciobanu 10y ago

Tell Iran about nonviolent methods. To have an overwhelmingly powerful military in the right hands (Bush Jr. was not the right hands) is a big safeguard against most crazy nations.

riot504 10y ago

Star Trek provides the setting for an ideal military; we are currently far from an ideal military as the best and brightest leave due to a variety of reasons. Yes, weapons research is needed because you often encounter violent species but research and exploration are above all; a thirst for knowledge is more important than profit. In general a culture (society) we seek money over knowledge. Certain individuals seek out knowledge with the goal of gaining more money. I am not saying all of us are like this but take society as a whole and a large percentage learn solely to earn more money, not for the pleasure in learning.

banku_brougham 10y ago

The right way to excercise your conscience and be an example for others. Thank you for sharing this, I hadn't seen it.