3 ms·

>Is there anybody here is who _doesn't_ like technical progress and doesn't want it to go faster? Sure. I am quite glad we stopped iterating on nuclear weapon

by ABCLAW 9y ago

>Is there anybody here is who _doesn't_ like technical progress and doesn't want it to go faster? Sure. I am quite glad we stopped iterating on nuclear weapon designs and I am quite fine with the state of the art not obliterating entire continents yet. I'm also quite happy we haven't done the R&D and optimization to lower the cost for mass producing neutron bombs too. I think you are too. I like technical progress that ameliorates the human condition. Some of it does. Some of it doesn't. Talking about the idea is difficult and complicated when you drill down beneath some trivial level, so people rarely bother, unless they, in one form or another, abstract that complexity away. If you do that, you're left with "progress is good!" and forget all the times when it wasn't or the reverse. Neither position is particularly interesting.

atemerev 9y ago
> we stopped iterating on nuclear weapon designs We didn't. Los Alamos is pretty busy this time of year. So is Sarov. > we haven't done the R&D and optimization to lower the cost for mass producing neutron bombs too. We had. And also, we were smart enough to put these papers on the shelf and not proceed with them. Say what you want about humanity, but 70+ years without a nuclear war is impressive, given our history. It became possible through continuous innovation in game theory, spy games, and yes, improving the deterrents. I think nuclear weapons will never be actually used in large-scale future wars, like chemical weapons weren't massively used in WW2. Progress is good. Wars are part of the progress. Wars themselves are bad, though, so some of the progress is spent to keep wars at bay, to not interfere with the progress.
- bykovich2 9y ago
  "Progress is good" is an implicative tautology -- the seeming obviousness of the statement relies on the fact that the term "progress" strongly implies "betterness." And it is, in fact, its applicability to any state of affairs a matter of betterness -- but betterness of very specific, and often unspoken, types. "Technology progress" may mean "better technology" -- but it does /not/ necessarily mean "technology that is better for people."
  - atemerev 9y ago
    Yes, not necessarily. Progress, in my opinion, is increasing efficiency in the modes of operation. Scaling-out. Space programs are progress. Modern warfare is not progress, it is, at best, self-defence and status quo preservation. I believe that intelligence rooted in biology is not the most efficient mode of operation.
    - bykovich2 9y ago
      How do you justify that definition of progress? And how do you draw a connection between "increasing efficiency in the modes of operation" and "good" (or even "desirable") -- if you do?
- ABCLAW 9y ago
  >We didn't. Los Alamos is pretty busy this time of year. So is Sarov. Relative investment and manpower on the issue has plummeted. I can't get into more specific details. >We had. And also, we were smart enough to put these papers on the shelf and not proceed with them. As the other commentator to the post makes very clear, the definition of 'progress' needs to be made clear. If it is increased understanding in a field of knowledge, then the statement I highlighted indicates you and I share the same viewpoint: maybe sometimes it is better to just stop learning more about a topic. If the definition of progress is all increased understanding in a field of knowledge which is good, then progress is tautologically good. Unfortunately, since the two definitions are similar, the term is very frequently used to launder advancements of their ethical consequences.
  - atemerev 9y ago
    > Relative investment and manpower on the issue has plummeted. I can't get into more specific details. I can. Of course it plummeted since the end of the Cold War, but it raised again in the last 3 years, for obvious reasons. The US is lagging behind (not for long), but other nuclear powers are frantically resuming relevant activities. > maybe sometimes it is better to just stop learning more about a topic. It isn't. Methods of learning might be unethical (and thus are not advisable to be pursued), but knowledge itself is beyond ethics.

by ABCLAW 9y ago

atemerev 9y ago

> we stopped iterating on nuclear weapon designs We didn't. Los Alamos is pretty busy this time of year. So is Sarov. > we haven't done the R&D and optimization to lower the cost for mass producing neutron bombs too. We had. And also, we were smart enough to put these papers on the shelf and not proceed with them. Say what you want about humanity, but 70+ years without a nuclear war is impressive, given our history. It became possible through continuous innovation in game theory, spy games, and yes, improving the deterrents. I think nuclear weapons will never be actually used in large-scale future wars, like chemical weapons weren't massively used in WW2. Progress is good. Wars are part of the progress. Wars themselves are bad, though, so some of the progress is spent to keep wars at bay, to not interfere with the progress.

bykovich2 9y ago
"Progress is good" is an implicative tautology -- the seeming obviousness of the statement relies on the fact that the term "progress" strongly implies "betterness." And it is, in fact, its applicability to any state of affairs a matter of betterness -- but betterness of very specific, and often unspoken, types. "Technology progress" may mean "better technology" -- but it does /not/ necessarily mean "technology that is better for people."
- atemerev 9y ago
  Yes, not necessarily. Progress, in my opinion, is increasing efficiency in the modes of operation. Scaling-out. Space programs are progress. Modern warfare is not progress, it is, at best, self-defence and status quo preservation. I believe that intelligence rooted in biology is not the most efficient mode of operation.
  - bykovich2 9y ago
    How do you justify that definition of progress? And how do you draw a connection between "increasing efficiency in the modes of operation" and "good" (or even "desirable") -- if you do?
ABCLAW 9y ago
>We didn't. Los Alamos is pretty busy this time of year. So is Sarov. Relative investment and manpower on the issue has plummeted. I can't get into more specific details. >We had. And also, we were smart enough to put these papers on the shelf and not proceed with them. As the other commentator to the post makes very clear, the definition of 'progress' needs to be made clear. If it is increased understanding in a field of knowledge, then the statement I highlighted indicates you and I share the same viewpoint: maybe sometimes it is better to just stop learning more about a topic. If the definition of progress is all increased understanding in a field of knowledge which is good, then progress is tautologically good. Unfortunately, since the two definitions are similar, the term is very frequently used to launder advancements of their ethical consequences.
- atemerev 9y ago
  > Relative investment and manpower on the issue has plummeted. I can't get into more specific details. I can. Of course it plummeted since the end of the Cold War, but it raised again in the last 3 years, for obvious reasons. The US is lagging behind (not for long), but other nuclear powers are frantically resuming relevant activities. > maybe sometimes it is better to just stop learning more about a topic. It isn't. Methods of learning might be unethical (and thus are not advisable to be pursued), but knowledge itself is beyond ethics.