11 ms·

Rogue One – An Engineering Ethics Story

233 points by bem94 10y ago

blackkettle 10y ago
I just saw this yesterday after being cajoled into it by my wife. I had very low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised at how misplaced they were. It was a lot more compelling than the rehashed installment from last year.
- golergka 10y ago
  Really? Being a Star Wars fan who was very impressed by VII, I was shocked to find out how astonishingly bad Rogue One was. Almost like abysmal Avengers (once again: long time Marvel fan), it tried to push in so many unsignificant and inconsequential plot details that the movie got cramped and boring at the same time. All different McGuffins, buttons and objectives of the final battle looked like a series of mindless quest objectives for a video game, while offering nothing in terms of actual character development. IMO, it was not only the worst Star Wars movie so far, but one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made.
  - thatswrong0 10y ago
    I'm also a Star Wars fan, and I thought VII was pretty mediocre (unoriginal to a fault, cheesy, the stakes felt low, the pacing was weird, the character interactions were forced and unrealistic, Rey way too powerful, the New Order was too incompetent, too much blatant fan service, lack of scale, etc.), whereas Rogue One is probably one of my favorite Star Wars movies (along with ESB). Funny how opinions work like that? But calling it one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made.. can't tell if you're joking.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    The characters were a little flat yes but it was an original story with a unique ending. VII was basically ANH2.0 when ANH was sufficiently good without being remade.
    - golergka 10y ago
      And they both, just like most of scifi, fantasy and other action movies are just variations of hero's journey with similar archetypes. So what? Originality for it's own sake doesn't make anything better.
      - csallen 10y ago
        Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it seems obvious to me that originality makes things better. Otherwise, why make new movies instead of merely rereleasing old ones? People want to see things they've never seen before, and they enjoy some degree of unpredictability. * spoilers * I found myself caring more for the characters in Rogue One than in most Star Wars movies. I suspect it's because they were (relatively speaking) normal people who could die at any moment, not unstoppable heroes of destiny. They were also deeply flawed and conflicted in realistic and relatable ways. This gave their risks and sacrifices far more gravity, and is why so many people found the final half hour so fresh and compelling.
  - falcolas 10y ago
    It's interesting, but it seems like fans are being pretty polarized by Rogue One. It seems like the ones who love it wanted another entertaining story in the Star Wars universe, and got it. Those who hate it wanted something new out of it, and got another rehash. I fall into the first category. I wanted to see the story of the plans getting into the rebel's hands, and got what I wanted. In addition, they created some fun one-off characters, wrapped up some plot holes in "A New Hope", and threw in some nice nostalgia with the X-Wing pilots. In short, I wanted another stand-alone episode of the Star Wars space opera, and got it.
  - mstade 10y ago
    I agreed with this at first. It felt rushed, and cramped. But then I saw it again (not really by choice, my family had already booked the tickets) and this time most of it actually made more sense to me. There's still gratuitous fan service, like bumping in to Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba or putting blue milk in the middle of the shot, but in terms of the scenery and story I think it works. It can be argued that there are too many insignificant characters being introduced and killed off before you have time to start caring, but given it's essentially a war movie that kind of makes sense to me. People largely unknown to one another rally together against a common foe, knowing full well the chance of success is slim and risk of death is great. As there's plenty of peril, characters are killed off unceremoniously all over the place – because it's war and war does that to you. Add to that the Death Star designer with a conciense, some really evil dudes like Krinnic – commenting "oh, it's beautiful" without so much as an inkling of remorse upon wiping out an entire city in an instant – and a great tie-in to ANH, and I think it works really quite well. I liked getting the backstory to why the Death Star has such a crucial flaw, and I buy it. It then also makes sense to me that the Death Star in ROTJ suffers the same fate – it's an iterative design (probably getting rid of exhaust ports) rather than a fundamental fix. I'm hoping there's a directors cut that fixes some of the pacing and adds some more reason to care about Saw Gerrera, but even without I quite enjoyed it – the second time around. I can definitely see how it's very confusing though, for someone not very well versed in the Star Wars saga, or if it's their first movie in the series. I recommend, if you're a fan of the series, that you see Rogue One again. It did the trick for me anyway, maybe it will for you too. One thing that did disappoint me quite a lot is the musical score. It feels entirely different from the established themes, and not in a good way.
    - SN76477 10y ago
      Rushed, cramped, and thin characters are far too common in modern movies. I think it is a sign of the times that people going to movies want more depth and 2 hours isn't enough to tell a deep story. While it has its flaws, the modern mini series (Game of Thrones, Daredevil) tell much better stories that are more compelling and have depth. (except The Walking Dead, they have some issues) I would rather see a 6 hour series on Netflix that tells the Rogue One story than a single 2 hour flick with characters that I have no interest in.
sebastianconcpt 10y ago
The most interesting part is: "Galen’s reflection on engineering could have come straight out of real-life engineering discussions of the 1970s. As the historian Matthew Wisnioski captures in his book “Engineers for Change”, many engineers were criticized during the Vietnam War for their role in developing major weapons systems. In the real world, Galen could have become a conscientious objector and left the project, but oftentimes engineers can choose to stay engaged and try to influence the project." <- influencing as euphemism of engineering sabotage of course.
- rm445 10y ago
  Perhaps that was the author's intent. But influencing without sabotage is perhaps relevant to our modern world, especially to the HN crowd - because weapons systems are likely to become more autonomous. If you're working on a battle robot - no longer just a science fiction concept - paying serious attention to the systems that prevent it being an indiscriminate civilian-slayer could be seen as ethical engineering, compared to leaving a project in the hands of people who care less about such things.
  - bem94 10y ago
    I agree, it is very relevant and especially to the HN crowd (who have always appeared deaf to this sort of thing from my limited experience here, though I am happy to be corrected on that point!). We all work on tools which might get twisted and applied to that which was not their original purpose. It's important to discuss the implications of that.
- empath75 10y ago
  I don't even know what the equivalent would be today -- handing Isis the passwords and frequencies for predator drones?
jankotek 10y ago
I find it bit weird to derive any ethics from Star Wars. All characters change sides way too often (first rebels, then republic/empire, then again rebels, then again republic...). Dart Vader commits genecide and destroys a few planets (including Leia's homeworld), but there is happy family reunion with Leia and Luck at the end... Jedis are good guys, but they never bother to send someone for Anakins mother, who is a slave... I would not be surprised if Death Star construction was initiated during the Old Republic. The same way Clone Army was created by some Jedi guy.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- erlehmann_ 10y ago
  I find it weird to derive ethics from fictional examples at all. The reason is “ex falso quod libet”, i.e. that one can derive any statement from a false (in this case, fictional) proposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
  - PythonicAlpha 10y ago
    Fictional is not always "wrong" or "false" as you claim. There are so many fictional books which have so much to teach. You can think of Star Wars how you like, but condemning fictional stories as bad only because they are no "true" stories -- is very short-sighted in my eyes. (and in my opinion a totally wrong understanding of the principles of logic). There are also so many "true" stories, where you can draw the wrong ethics from!! (newest events included!)
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Anderkent 10y ago
      The problem of course is that even if some fictional stories contain the right moral lessons, the ones that would work out in the real world, you can't tell them from the ones that are 'wrong' and 'false'. At best you can find stories that tell lessons you already agree with. And while 'real' stories might still be doctored by the writer to send a particular message and mislead you to a conclusion, at least they're constrained by the facts.
dbg31415 10y ago
To anyone who hasn't seen Rogue One yet... I think it's the best Star Wars movie since Empire. Worth your time. Amazing fast-paced character development and arcs (compare Star Wars to Suicide Squad if you really want to be impressed or see how badly it could have turned out), wonderful little cameos, rich visuals that show what the prequels could have been, and paramount a superbly written and acted story. (Spoilers) The ambiguous ethics of sending an assassin to kill Galen because The Rebellion didn't believe how he could leak truthful information (and keep this mission secret from Jyn in order to get her help locating her father) was especially well done. The concept of sides, Empire or Rebellion, being unclear to people until they join one was also woven in nicely -- normal people just want to go about their lives free from conflict. The most hotly debated topic between me and my friends though wasn't about ethics, it was about if Donnie Yen's character was using The Force or not. (Of course he was, and in prior movies plenty of characters used The Force before becoming Jedis.) https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/04/08/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-who-is-the-staff-wielder/ https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/04/08/rogue-one-a-star-w... Rogue One's story certainly muddies the waters a bit, but the fact Star Wars is willing to embrace more complexity and a blurring of the lines is great for the franchise and mature fan base. Someone woke up and realized that the value of the Star Wars ins't just how many lunch boxes it can sell, they can make a buck telling compelling stories as well. #NoEwoks #NoGungan
- Anderkent 10y ago
  YMMV. For me the attempts at a serious story fall flat due to the amount of plot holes and asspulls. I've enjoyed suicide squad a lot more - it wasn't trying to be taken seriously, so the absurdity didn't clash. Same with the previous star wars - it went for a very simple story, so it was harder to mess up Rogue One is pretty, sure. But the story is a chain of coincidences. No character, except maybe for Vader - who's mostly a cameo, actually tries to act according to its presented motivation, or tries to solve any of their presented problems. Throughout the movie character motivations are at best tertiary to firstly doing whatever is flashiest, or secondarily executing whatever morality cliche the movie is currently on. Basically, every character in rogue one is unbelievably stupid. And then you get to the 'science fiction' setting where battles between capital ships happen at 200m (but the bad guys only start shooting after the obligatory 5 minutes of tactical discussions), shooting at a force field that just destroyed multiple ships that rammed into it is a thing that makes sense, etc. Etc. Rogue One is still as much of a fairy tale as previous star wars moves; but it tries to pretend it's not. And that completely destroys any immersion the viewer might have.
ge96 10y ago
I'm just happy the Calamary dudes were in this movie haha.
- zhemao 10y ago
  And then presumably all die in the end when seemingly the entire rebel fleet gets trashed. :-( No wonder they resort to attacking the Death Star with tiny fighters in Episode IV.
  - Kihashi 10y ago
    They also say in E IV that the death star is well defended against a full fleet, but that a small group of fighters should be able to break through more easily.
    - VLM 10y ago
      Its a spoiler but a small group of fighters DID get thru the planetary defenses and none of the large capital ships got thru, it wasn't entirely theoretical. Its a classic surface area to volume ratio thing combined with scalability and miniaturization limits, in that its always the case that the smallest thing will get really close to the larger thing while it quickly takes its losses, and if that's in weapons range the larger thing will get scratched up a bit, and if the smaller things have a secret killer weapon or strategy, they win. Thats just how swarm attacks are. Operations theory and all that. You can do graphs of differential equations of loss rates in a very abstract sense to show it always turns out like this.
      - ge96 10y ago
        It was also nuts in (EP VI I think) when the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star and nothing really happens to the Death Star.
bem94 10y ago
Maybe this isn't entirely surprising given the audience, but it seems like most of the comments and discussions here prefer to deal with topics very much contained within the Starwars universe, rather than looking at the parallels the article raises between the moral choices faced by Galen and those faced by we Engineers today. There's a dozen ways to interpret that I guess. I hope it speaks more to the fandom of Starwars rather than contemporary disregard for the discussion of ethics in engineering.
- Senderman 10y ago
  You're right that the discussion is leaning to the fictional side, but to be fair, the article falls into this trap as well. I don't think it's disregard, I think it's practicality… The fact is the movie is the only shared-context for discussion that's been offered. Everyone works somewhere different, but everyone (apparently!) has seen the movie, so that't the 'moral arena' being discussed. If you reply to the comments that you find disconcerting in this way, and try to tease the conversation onto a real world example that you offer, I think you'll see the real discussion start.
- Taek 10y ago
  In Star wars there's a very clear sense of good and evil. The bad guys seem to be aware that they are bad guys. Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys. And that makes discussions of ethics a lot more difficult. And to the best of my knowledge, we don't really have guidelines the way doctors do. Is it okay to write code that tracks users even when your app is closed? Is it okay to build missile guidance systems? Bombs? Ad + tracking networks that tell companies 90% of your browsing habits without your permission?
  - bem94 10y ago
    Indeed! It makes the discussions very difficult and all the more necessary. It's interesting what you say about guidelines. I actually went looking for anything which might resemble an engineers code of ethics. There are a couple out there [1] but those I found are firmly routed in the abstract, and offer little in terms of practical guidance. All of your questions are exactly the kinds of discussions engineers need to have, both among themselves and with the engagement of the society we serve and influence. > Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys. You're right. I think there is also a false dichotomy between "good" and "bad" technologies and their applications as well. It isn't as clear cut as that and we would do well to appreciate the nuance rather than race to ascribe something an approximate and inadequate label. 1. https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...
guelo 10y ago
Related IRL, you can sign this pledge to refuse to build a Muslim registry: http://neveragain.tech/ http://neveragain.tech/
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- dominotw 10y ago
  Wonder who built Obama's muslim registry[1], why were these ethical concerns not an issue for Obama version of it. Edit: i don't mean this as a gotcha comment, I am genuinely curious why there was no hullabaloo over Obama's registry. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/obama-nseers-arab-muslim-registry/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/obama-nseers-arab-mus...
  - gcr 10y ago
    A nitpick, but an important one: NSEERS was started as a response to 9/11 several years before Obama took office. It's absolutely not correct to call it "Obama's muslim registry" or "the Obama version." The hullabaloo over NSEERS was drowned out by the hullabaloo over all the other things 9/11 brought forth.
    - dominotw 10y ago
      > hullabaloo over NSEERS Bush or Obama, I don't think a single tech company publically refused to build this registry. What is the hullabaloo you are referring to. Why is it different this time? Also puzzled why I am being downvoted, is this a stupid question to ask?
      - LordDragonfang 10y ago
        I think he's referring to a "hullabaloo that would have been" had the American populace not been otherwise distracted and coerced into thinking it needed such things.
betolink 10y ago
From the movie "Flash of Genius" about Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper: "I can't think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering," Dr. Kearns continues. "Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions." "Now, I don't know what any of you are going to end up doing in your lives," Dr. Kearns says, "but I can guarantee you that there will come a day when you have a decision to make. And it won't be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber."
- vtlynch 10y ago
  Yes, from the movie. From the source I found (linked below), this is a line Greg Kinnear spoke, that was written by the screen writers. Is there any evidence the real Robert Kearns said this? http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2009/april/6042009.html http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2009/april/60420... Furthermore, how does the first part of the quote make sense. Shouldnt he be saying that ethics trumps engineering, not the other way around?
  - otakucode 10y ago
    He's not saying ethics trumps engineering. He was saying that in other careers, ethics are not as critically important as they are in engineering.
negamax 10y ago
Ethics should be taught on all levels. It's impossible to predict how a good invention of today would be twisted to serve an ulterior motive tomorrow. Can we get a universal understanding of right and wrong. Not sure. Isn't AK-47 the biggest killer today? That doesn't mean that world would be less bloody without it. More than engineers and inventors, people at large should be less violent. Can that be made possible through ethics? Religion is a way to do that but all it becomes eventually is superstition.
dba7dba 10y ago
Engineers talking about engineers that should act ethically is good, but self limiting, and even self defeating. For every engineer that builds a terror weapon, every architect that builds a McMansion, every chef that brings out unhealthy food with not fresh ingredient, every school district that fails at educating kids adequately, there is someone with a checkbook that decides who/what gets paid for a goal. All bad or unethical product is ultimately possible because of someone writing the checkbook. If one or even all engineers of an organization disagree and leave due to ethics, the checkbook writer will just go out and hire next batch of engineers. In the fictional story or Star Wars, someone had money (or credits in Star Wars universe) to put the stormtroopers, Star Destroyers, Tie Fighters, a planet with beautiful tropical islands with sandy beaches and competent engineers (but often incompetent security force) to work at building the Death Star. Sure the Emperor has the force to get it done, but in our life, someone gets to dictate what gets built with a checkbook. So, discussing ethics in engineering is great, but even more important imho is, who writes the checks.
- zhemao 10y ago
  The whole point of the article was that Galen Urso was cognizant of that fact and chose to involve himself in the project in order to introduce a fatal flaw. The people writing the checks obviously have the most power and responsibility, but that doesn't mean that engineers don't have to engage in ethical reasoning.
- haihaibye 10y ago
  >> just go out and hire next batch of engineers Reducing supply will increase the price, though. If people factor morality into their work, doing evil will be a bit more expensive. See eg the opposite happening with people taking low wages to work in charities and research.
tcopeland 10y ago
For many more variations on Star Wars in terms of the modern military, check out Angry Staff Officer's posts: https://angrystaffofficer.com/category/star-wars/ https://angrystaffofficer.com/category/star-wars/ One of my favorites is "Skywalker on Trial": https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/11/skywalker-on-trial-the-galactic-code-of-military-justice/ https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/11/skywalker-on-trial-...
otakucode 10y ago
"I'm just doing my job" is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to "I'm just doing it for money." I never understand why most people do not realize this and treat one as sacrosanct and an automatic moral dodge but the other as totally morally bankrupt even when people aren't being harmed.
icanhackit 10y ago
Before reading the article I saw the title and turned to my partner to discuss the ethics of engineering. I mentioned that the State is largely powerless without the technical prowess of engineers and that one of the key aspects of engineering is designing and building the machines that make machines. Gavin the bread-maker might be good enough to build an individual tank through trial and error, but one tank isn't enough and a collection of hobbyists isn't enough to arm the State with a worthy arsenal. The hobbyist can build one or a few things, but it takes an engineer to build many. They are force-multipliers. The discussion turned to game theory. I mentioned that perhaps Chartered Engineers should have something like the hippocratic oath, where they would collectively refuse to design things from casinos to war-machines - anything that has the potential to harm society. My partner, who has a background in history and law, suggested it was futile as the State would simply hold them to ransom, either for their family's lives or their own, guaranteeing cooperation from a considerable number. She then suggested that a way of getting around these issues would be to design very subtle flaws, weaknesses or exploits that could only be known by an engineer intimately involved in the project. Funnily enough, that was exactly what the article focussed on: After Krennic captures him, Galen later tells his daughter Jyn that he had a choice: he could have continued abstaining, and let someone else build the Death Star, or he could dive deep into the project, become indispensable to it, and find a way to stop it. He chooses to dive deep, and succeeds in building a subtle flaw in the Death Star design. Then 15 years later, he sends a messenger to the Rebellion informing them of the weapon’s existence, power and most importantly, its fatal flaw.

233 points by bem94 10y ago

I just saw this yesterday after being cajoled into it by my wife. I had very low expectations, and was pleasantly surprised at how misplaced they were. It was a lot more compelling than the rehashed installment from last year.

golergka 10y ago
Really? Being a Star Wars fan who was very impressed by VII, I was shocked to find out how astonishingly bad Rogue One was. Almost like abysmal Avengers (once again: long time Marvel fan), it tried to push in so many unsignificant and inconsequential plot details that the movie got cramped and boring at the same time. All different McGuffins, buttons and objectives of the final battle looked like a series of mindless quest objectives for a video game, while offering nothing in terms of actual character development. IMO, it was not only the worst Star Wars movie so far, but one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made.
- thatswrong0 10y ago
  I'm also a Star Wars fan, and I thought VII was pretty mediocre (unoriginal to a fault, cheesy, the stakes felt low, the pacing was weird, the character interactions were forced and unrealistic, Rey way too powerful, the New Order was too incompetent, too much blatant fan service, lack of scale, etc.), whereas Rogue One is probably one of my favorite Star Wars movies (along with ESB). Funny how opinions work like that? But calling it one of the worst blockbuster movies ever made.. can't tell if you're joking.
- Trundle 10y ago
  The characters were a little flat yes but it was an original story with a unique ending. VII was basically ANH2.0 when ANH was sufficiently good without being remade.
  - golergka 10y ago
    And they both, just like most of scifi, fantasy and other action movies are just variations of hero's journey with similar archetypes. So what? Originality for it's own sake doesn't make anything better.
    - csallen 10y ago
      Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying, but it seems obvious to me that originality makes things better. Otherwise, why make new movies instead of merely rereleasing old ones? People want to see things they've never seen before, and they enjoy some degree of unpredictability. * spoilers * I found myself caring more for the characters in Rogue One than in most Star Wars movies. I suspect it's because they were (relatively speaking) normal people who could die at any moment, not unstoppable heroes of destiny. They were also deeply flawed and conflicted in realistic and relatable ways. This gave their risks and sacrifices far more gravity, and is why so many people found the final half hour so fresh and compelling.
- falcolas 10y ago
  It's interesting, but it seems like fans are being pretty polarized by Rogue One. It seems like the ones who love it wanted another entertaining story in the Star Wars universe, and got it. Those who hate it wanted something new out of it, and got another rehash. I fall into the first category. I wanted to see the story of the plans getting into the rebel's hands, and got what I wanted. In addition, they created some fun one-off characters, wrapped up some plot holes in "A New Hope", and threw in some nice nostalgia with the X-Wing pilots. In short, I wanted another stand-alone episode of the Star Wars space opera, and got it.
- mstade 10y ago
  I agreed with this at first. It felt rushed, and cramped. But then I saw it again (not really by choice, my family had already booked the tickets) and this time most of it actually made more sense to me. There's still gratuitous fan service, like bumping in to Dr. Evazan and Ponda Baba or putting blue milk in the middle of the shot, but in terms of the scenery and story I think it works. It can be argued that there are too many insignificant characters being introduced and killed off before you have time to start caring, but given it's essentially a war movie that kind of makes sense to me. People largely unknown to one another rally together against a common foe, knowing full well the chance of success is slim and risk of death is great. As there's plenty of peril, characters are killed off unceremoniously all over the place – because it's war and war does that to you. Add to that the Death Star designer with a conciense, some really evil dudes like Krinnic – commenting "oh, it's beautiful" without so much as an inkling of remorse upon wiping out an entire city in an instant – and a great tie-in to ANH, and I think it works really quite well. I liked getting the backstory to why the Death Star has such a crucial flaw, and I buy it. It then also makes sense to me that the Death Star in ROTJ suffers the same fate – it's an iterative design (probably getting rid of exhaust ports) rather than a fundamental fix. I'm hoping there's a directors cut that fixes some of the pacing and adds some more reason to care about Saw Gerrera, but even without I quite enjoyed it – the second time around. I can definitely see how it's very confusing though, for someone not very well versed in the Star Wars saga, or if it's their first movie in the series. I recommend, if you're a fan of the series, that you see Rogue One again. It did the trick for me anyway, maybe it will for you too. One thing that did disappoint me quite a lot is the musical score. It feels entirely different from the established themes, and not in a good way.
  - SN76477 10y ago
    Rushed, cramped, and thin characters are far too common in modern movies. I think it is a sign of the times that people going to movies want more depth and 2 hours isn't enough to tell a deep story. While it has its flaws, the modern mini series (Game of Thrones, Daredevil) tell much better stories that are more compelling and have depth. (except The Walking Dead, they have some issues) I would rather see a 6 hour series on Netflix that tells the Rogue One story than a single 2 hour flick with characters that I have no interest in.

sebastianconcpt 10y ago

The most interesting part is: "Galen’s reflection on engineering could have come straight out of real-life engineering discussions of the 1970s. As the historian Matthew Wisnioski captures in his book “Engineers for Change”, many engineers were criticized during the Vietnam War for their role in developing major weapons systems. In the real world, Galen could have become a conscientious objector and left the project, but oftentimes engineers can choose to stay engaged and try to influence the project." <- influencing as euphemism of engineering sabotage of course.

rm445 10y ago
Perhaps that was the author's intent. But influencing without sabotage is perhaps relevant to our modern world, especially to the HN crowd - because weapons systems are likely to become more autonomous. If you're working on a battle robot - no longer just a science fiction concept - paying serious attention to the systems that prevent it being an indiscriminate civilian-slayer could be seen as ethical engineering, compared to leaving a project in the hands of people who care less about such things.
- bem94 10y ago
  I agree, it is very relevant and especially to the HN crowd (who have always appeared deaf to this sort of thing from my limited experience here, though I am happy to be corrected on that point!). We all work on tools which might get twisted and applied to that which was not their original purpose. It's important to discuss the implications of that.
empath75 10y ago
I don't even know what the equivalent would be today -- handing Isis the passwords and frequencies for predator drones?

jankotek 10y ago

I find it bit weird to derive any ethics from Star Wars. All characters change sides way too often (first rebels, then republic/empire, then again rebels, then again republic...). Dart Vader commits genecide and destroys a few planets (including Leia's homeworld), but there is happy family reunion with Leia and Luck at the end... Jedis are good guys, but they never bother to send someone for Anakins mother, who is a slave... I would not be surprised if Death Star construction was initiated during the Old Republic. The same way Clone Army was created by some Jedi guy.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
erlehmann_ 10y ago
I find it weird to derive ethics from fictional examples at all. The reason is “ex falso quod libet”, i.e. that one can derive any statement from a false (in this case, fictional) proposition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion
- PythonicAlpha 10y ago
  Fictional is not always "wrong" or "false" as you claim. There are so many fictional books which have so much to teach. You can think of Star Wars how you like, but condemning fictional stories as bad only because they are no "true" stories -- is very short-sighted in my eyes. (and in my opinion a totally wrong understanding of the principles of logic). There are also so many "true" stories, where you can draw the wrong ethics from!! (newest events included!)
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - Anderkent 10y ago
    The problem of course is that even if some fictional stories contain the right moral lessons, the ones that would work out in the real world, you can't tell them from the ones that are 'wrong' and 'false'. At best you can find stories that tell lessons you already agree with. And while 'real' stories might still be doctored by the writer to send a particular message and mislead you to a conclusion, at least they're constrained by the facts.

dbg31415 10y ago

To anyone who hasn't seen Rogue One yet... I think it's the best Star Wars movie since Empire. Worth your time. Amazing fast-paced character development and arcs (compare Star Wars to Suicide Squad if you really want to be impressed or see how badly it could have turned out), wonderful little cameos, rich visuals that show what the prequels could have been, and paramount a superbly written and acted story. (Spoilers) The ambiguous ethics of sending an assassin to kill Galen because The Rebellion didn't believe how he could leak truthful information (and keep this mission secret from Jyn in order to get her help locating her father) was especially well done. The concept of sides, Empire or Rebellion, being unclear to people until they join one was also woven in nicely -- normal people just want to go about their lives free from conflict. The most hotly debated topic between me and my friends though wasn't about ethics, it was about if Donnie Yen's character was using The Force or not. (Of course he was, and in prior movies plenty of characters used The Force before becoming Jedis.) https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/04/08/rogue-one-a-star-wars-story-who-is-the-staff-wielder/ https://dorksideoftheforce.com/2016/04/08/rogue-one-a-star-w... Rogue One's story certainly muddies the waters a bit, but the fact Star Wars is willing to embrace more complexity and a blurring of the lines is great for the franchise and mature fan base. Someone woke up and realized that the value of the Star Wars ins't just how many lunch boxes it can sell, they can make a buck telling compelling stories as well. #NoEwoks #NoGungan

Anderkent 10y ago
YMMV. For me the attempts at a serious story fall flat due to the amount of plot holes and asspulls. I've enjoyed suicide squad a lot more - it wasn't trying to be taken seriously, so the absurdity didn't clash. Same with the previous star wars - it went for a very simple story, so it was harder to mess up Rogue One is pretty, sure. But the story is a chain of coincidences. No character, except maybe for Vader - who's mostly a cameo, actually tries to act according to its presented motivation, or tries to solve any of their presented problems. Throughout the movie character motivations are at best tertiary to firstly doing whatever is flashiest, or secondarily executing whatever morality cliche the movie is currently on. Basically, every character in rogue one is unbelievably stupid. And then you get to the 'science fiction' setting where battles between capital ships happen at 200m (but the bad guys only start shooting after the obligatory 5 minutes of tactical discussions), shooting at a force field that just destroyed multiple ships that rammed into it is a thing that makes sense, etc. Etc. Rogue One is still as much of a fairy tale as previous star wars moves; but it tries to pretend it's not. And that completely destroys any immersion the viewer might have.

ge96 10y ago

I'm just happy the Calamary dudes were in this movie haha.

zhemao 10y ago
And then presumably all die in the end when seemingly the entire rebel fleet gets trashed. :-( No wonder they resort to attacking the Death Star with tiny fighters in Episode IV.
- Kihashi 10y ago
  They also say in E IV that the death star is well defended against a full fleet, but that a small group of fighters should be able to break through more easily.
  - VLM 10y ago
    Its a spoiler but a small group of fighters DID get thru the planetary defenses and none of the large capital ships got thru, it wasn't entirely theoretical. Its a classic surface area to volume ratio thing combined with scalability and miniaturization limits, in that its always the case that the smallest thing will get really close to the larger thing while it quickly takes its losses, and if that's in weapons range the larger thing will get scratched up a bit, and if the smaller things have a secret killer weapon or strategy, they win. Thats just how swarm attacks are. Operations theory and all that. You can do graphs of differential equations of loss rates in a very abstract sense to show it always turns out like this.
    - ge96 10y ago
      It was also nuts in (EP VI I think) when the Super Star Destroyer crashes into the Death Star and nothing really happens to the Death Star.

bem94 10y ago

Maybe this isn't entirely surprising given the audience, but it seems like most of the comments and discussions here prefer to deal with topics very much contained within the Starwars universe, rather than looking at the parallels the article raises between the moral choices faced by Galen and those faced by we Engineers today. There's a dozen ways to interpret that I guess. I hope it speaks more to the fandom of Starwars rather than contemporary disregard for the discussion of ethics in engineering.

Senderman 10y ago
You're right that the discussion is leaning to the fictional side, but to be fair, the article falls into this trap as well. I don't think it's disregard, I think it's practicality… The fact is the movie is the only shared-context for discussion that's been offered. Everyone works somewhere different, but everyone (apparently!) has seen the movie, so that't the 'moral arena' being discussed. If you reply to the comments that you find disconcerting in this way, and try to tease the conversation onto a real world example that you offer, I think you'll see the real discussion start.
Taek 10y ago
In Star wars there's a very clear sense of good and evil. The bad guys seem to be aware that they are bad guys. Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys. And that makes discussions of ethics a lot more difficult. And to the best of my knowledge, we don't really have guidelines the way doctors do. Is it okay to write code that tracks users even when your app is closed? Is it okay to build missile guidance systems? Bombs? Ad + tracking networks that tell companies 90% of your browsing habits without your permission?
- bem94 10y ago
  Indeed! It makes the discussions very difficult and all the more necessary. It's interesting what you say about guidelines. I actually went looking for anything which might resemble an engineers code of ethics. There are a couple out there [1] but those I found are firmly routed in the abstract, and offer little in terms of practical guidance. All of your questions are exactly the kinds of discussions engineers need to have, both among themselves and with the engagement of the society we serve and influence. > Most engineers, most soldiers, and even most terrorists genuinely believe that they are the good guys. You're right. I think there is also a false dichotomy between "good" and "bad" technologies and their applications as well. It isn't as clear cut as that and we would do well to appreciate the nuance rather than race to ascribe something an approximate and inadequate label. 1. https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-professional-conduct https://www.acm.org/about-acm/acm-code-of-ethics-and-profess...

guelo 10y ago

Related IRL, you can sign this pledge to refuse to build a Muslim registry: http://neveragain.tech/ http://neveragain.tech/

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dominotw 10y ago
Wonder who built Obama's muslim registry[1], why were these ethical concerns not an issue for Obama version of it. Edit: i don't mean this as a gotcha comment, I am genuinely curious why there was no hullabaloo over Obama's registry. http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/obama-nseers-arab-muslim-registry/ http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/22/politics/obama-nseers-arab-mus...
- gcr 10y ago
  A nitpick, but an important one: NSEERS was started as a response to 9/11 several years before Obama took office. It's absolutely not correct to call it "Obama's muslim registry" or "the Obama version." The hullabaloo over NSEERS was drowned out by the hullabaloo over all the other things 9/11 brought forth.
  - dominotw 10y ago
    > hullabaloo over NSEERS Bush or Obama, I don't think a single tech company publically refused to build this registry. What is the hullabaloo you are referring to. Why is it different this time? Also puzzled why I am being downvoted, is this a stupid question to ask?
    - LordDragonfang 10y ago
      I think he's referring to a "hullabaloo that would have been" had the American populace not been otherwise distracted and coerced into thinking it needed such things.

betolink 10y ago

From the movie "Flash of Genius" about Robert Kearns, the inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper: "I can't think of a job or a career where the understanding of ethics is more important than engineering," Dr. Kearns continues. "Who designed the artificial aortic heart valve? An engineer did that. Who designed the gas chambers at Auschwitz? An engineer did that, too. One man was responsible for helping save tens of thousands of lives. Another man helped kill millions." "Now, I don't know what any of you are going to end up doing in your lives," Dr. Kearns says, "but I can guarantee you that there will come a day when you have a decision to make. And it won't be as easy as deciding between a heart valve and a gas chamber."

vtlynch 10y ago
Yes, from the movie. From the source I found (linked below), this is a line Greg Kinnear spoke, that was written by the screen writers. Is there any evidence the real Robert Kearns said this? http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2009/april/6042009.html http://www.preachingtoday.com/illustrations/2009/april/60420... Furthermore, how does the first part of the quote make sense. Shouldnt he be saying that ethics trumps engineering, not the other way around?
- otakucode 10y ago
  He's not saying ethics trumps engineering. He was saying that in other careers, ethics are not as critically important as they are in engineering.

negamax 10y ago

Ethics should be taught on all levels. It's impossible to predict how a good invention of today would be twisted to serve an ulterior motive tomorrow. Can we get a universal understanding of right and wrong. Not sure. Isn't AK-47 the biggest killer today? That doesn't mean that world would be less bloody without it. More than engineers and inventors, people at large should be less violent. Can that be made possible through ethics? Religion is a way to do that but all it becomes eventually is superstition.

dba7dba 10y ago

Engineers talking about engineers that should act ethically is good, but self limiting, and even self defeating. For every engineer that builds a terror weapon, every architect that builds a McMansion, every chef that brings out unhealthy food with not fresh ingredient, every school district that fails at educating kids adequately, there is someone with a checkbook that decides who/what gets paid for a goal. All bad or unethical product is ultimately possible because of someone writing the checkbook. If one or even all engineers of an organization disagree and leave due to ethics, the checkbook writer will just go out and hire next batch of engineers. In the fictional story or Star Wars, someone had money (or credits in Star Wars universe) to put the stormtroopers, Star Destroyers, Tie Fighters, a planet with beautiful tropical islands with sandy beaches and competent engineers (but often incompetent security force) to work at building the Death Star. Sure the Emperor has the force to get it done, but in our life, someone gets to dictate what gets built with a checkbook. So, discussing ethics in engineering is great, but even more important imho is, who writes the checks.

zhemao 10y ago
The whole point of the article was that Galen Urso was cognizant of that fact and chose to involve himself in the project in order to introduce a fatal flaw. The people writing the checks obviously have the most power and responsibility, but that doesn't mean that engineers don't have to engage in ethical reasoning.
haihaibye 10y ago
>> just go out and hire next batch of engineers Reducing supply will increase the price, though. If people factor morality into their work, doing evil will be a bit more expensive. See eg the opposite happening with people taking low wages to work in charities and research.

tcopeland 10y ago

For many more variations on Star Wars in terms of the modern military, check out Angry Staff Officer's posts: https://angrystaffofficer.com/category/star-wars/ https://angrystaffofficer.com/category/star-wars/ One of my favorites is "Skywalker on Trial": https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/11/skywalker-on-trial-the-galactic-code-of-military-justice/ https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/07/11/skywalker-on-trial-...

otakucode 10y ago

"I'm just doing my job" is EXACTLY IDENTICAL to "I'm just doing it for money." I never understand why most people do not realize this and treat one as sacrosanct and an automatic moral dodge but the other as totally morally bankrupt even when people aren't being harmed.

icanhackit 10y ago

Before reading the article I saw the title and turned to my partner to discuss the ethics of engineering. I mentioned that the State is largely powerless without the technical prowess of engineers and that one of the key aspects of engineering is designing and building the machines that make machines. Gavin the bread-maker might be good enough to build an individual tank through trial and error, but one tank isn't enough and a collection of hobbyists isn't enough to arm the State with a worthy arsenal. The hobbyist can build one or a few things, but it takes an engineer to build many. They are force-multipliers. The discussion turned to game theory. I mentioned that perhaps Chartered Engineers should have something like the hippocratic oath, where they would collectively refuse to design things from casinos to war-machines - anything that has the potential to harm society. My partner, who has a background in history and law, suggested it was futile as the State would simply hold them to ransom, either for their family's lives or their own, guaranteeing cooperation from a considerable number. She then suggested that a way of getting around these issues would be to design very subtle flaws, weaknesses or exploits that could only be known by an engineer intimately involved in the project. Funnily enough, that was exactly what the article focussed on: After Krennic captures him, Galen later tells his daughter Jyn that he had a choice: he could have continued abstaining, and let someone else build the Death Star, or he could dive deep into the project, become indispensable to it, and find a way to stop it. He chooses to dive deep, and succeeds in building a subtle flaw in the Death Star design. Then 15 years later, he sends a messenger to the Rebellion informing them of the weapon’s existence, power and most importantly, its fatal flaw.