4 ms·

>The first thing people do with tech is to use it to create or enhance weapons. That's only true if you're cherry picking. Plenty of tech doesn't even apply to

by nnfy 9y ago

>The first thing people do with tech is to use it to create or enhance weapons. That's only true if you're cherry picking. Plenty of tech doesn't even apply to the defense industry. Moreover, I'd posit thay any limitation placed on tech to limit danger will almost certainly limit potential benefit as well. Ignorance is never the solution.

WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
No, pick every advancement/breakthrough in technology and you'll see it either enhanced a weapon or created a new class of weapon. No cherry picking. If it can be used in society it can be used in war.
- nnfy 9y ago
  Cotton gin Hypodermic needle Fracking Solar panels This argument is a little pedantic, but here are some examples that contradict your assertion. Consider this: without the bomb we would not have nuclear power. Without modern warfare we would not have modern medicine. There are other examples, but you would have been worse off limiting these. Not to mention non-technological benefits like geopolitical stability from MAD.
  - trophycase 9y ago
    Well I think what OP actually means (how I understand it) rather than specific inventions is "meta-technologies" such as AI, cryptography, the internet, etc. Perhaps meta-technology isn't the right term or super clearly defined but hopefully you can grok what I mean. Clearly not every single invention was created for he military.
  - WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
    > Cotton gin Better clothing for soldiers, tents, and more clothing for them. Plenty more I'm sure. Early war planes used canvas instead of metal as outside cover as they went out to fight each other. > Hypodermic needle Enhancement of battlefield medicine. Fix them faster so they can continue to fight. > Fracking Cheaper and continued source of fuel for war machinery > Solar Spy satellites, power for field communications. It's only the beginning. Nuclear power is a perfect example of the dangers of technology. The world powers have decided to limit its spread because it's so dangerous to let everyone have it. If nuclear bomb tech was free to run its course they would be small, cheap and every country would have some. And most would not hesitate to use them.
    - dsacco 9y ago
      "Making clothes for soldiers" is reaching. You're expanding "use technology for war" to the point of nonsense and diluting the point. I can just as easily say that the cotton gin enhanced every thing ever because it allowed every human involved in every endeavor to wear clothes. Furthermore, to circle back to your original point: even if we accept that the cotton gin is a technology "used for war", it most certainly was not the first nor the primary use of that technology (the first use was clothing).
      - Veedrac 9y ago
        You're cherry-picking an irrelevant property of the argument. So what if, hypothetically, general AI is used nth rather than 1st in line for warfare? It's still AI used for warfare.
      - WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
        Ok don't take that as an impact but tech does not live in a bubble. The cotton gin was a contributor to the civil war. It made cotton processing much easier and more cotton was grown which required more slaves. Which inflamed the debate between the ones that wanted slavery and those that did not. So from my view it not only aided the war once it started. But it was also a contributor to its beginning. But whatever I say you'll find fault. You'll focus on the small details. I'm a techie too and I sometimes find myself arguing the smallest detail whether it has consequences or not. It's that type of attention to detail that keeps us employed when we need to make sure things are working. The bottom line is that you think tech is great while I think it's great but we have to be careful with it's development and use. All I can say is that it's worth being careful where we step.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  That's tautological. The very natures of technology and war mean that any and all technologies can, and will, be used for military, directly or indirectly. As you say, "If it can be used in society it can be used in war". But this is not a good argument against technology or research.

by nnfy 9y ago

WheelsAtLarge 9y ago

No, pick every advancement/breakthrough in technology and you'll see it either enhanced a weapon or created a new class of weapon. No cherry picking. If it can be used in society it can be used in war.

nnfy 9y ago
Cotton gin Hypodermic needle Fracking Solar panels This argument is a little pedantic, but here are some examples that contradict your assertion. Consider this: without the bomb we would not have nuclear power. Without modern warfare we would not have modern medicine. There are other examples, but you would have been worse off limiting these. Not to mention non-technological benefits like geopolitical stability from MAD.
- trophycase 9y ago
  Well I think what OP actually means (how I understand it) rather than specific inventions is "meta-technologies" such as AI, cryptography, the internet, etc. Perhaps meta-technology isn't the right term or super clearly defined but hopefully you can grok what I mean. Clearly not every single invention was created for he military.
- WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
  > Cotton gin Better clothing for soldiers, tents, and more clothing for them. Plenty more I'm sure. Early war planes used canvas instead of metal as outside cover as they went out to fight each other. > Hypodermic needle Enhancement of battlefield medicine. Fix them faster so they can continue to fight. > Fracking Cheaper and continued source of fuel for war machinery > Solar Spy satellites, power for field communications. It's only the beginning. Nuclear power is a perfect example of the dangers of technology. The world powers have decided to limit its spread because it's so dangerous to let everyone have it. If nuclear bomb tech was free to run its course they would be small, cheap and every country would have some. And most would not hesitate to use them.
  - dsacco 9y ago
    "Making clothes for soldiers" is reaching. You're expanding "use technology for war" to the point of nonsense and diluting the point. I can just as easily say that the cotton gin enhanced every thing ever because it allowed every human involved in every endeavor to wear clothes. Furthermore, to circle back to your original point: even if we accept that the cotton gin is a technology "used for war", it most certainly was not the first nor the primary use of that technology (the first use was clothing).
    - Veedrac 9y ago
      You're cherry-picking an irrelevant property of the argument. So what if, hypothetically, general AI is used nth rather than 1st in line for warfare? It's still AI used for warfare.
    - WheelsAtLarge 9y ago
      Ok don't take that as an impact but tech does not live in a bubble. The cotton gin was a contributor to the civil war. It made cotton processing much easier and more cotton was grown which required more slaves. Which inflamed the debate between the ones that wanted slavery and those that did not. So from my view it not only aided the war once it started. But it was also a contributor to its beginning. But whatever I say you'll find fault. You'll focus on the small details. I'm a techie too and I sometimes find myself arguing the smallest detail whether it has consequences or not. It's that type of attention to detail that keeps us employed when we need to make sure things are working. The bottom line is that you think tech is great while I think it's great but we have to be careful with it's development and use. All I can say is that it's worth being careful where we step.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
That's tautological. The very natures of technology and war mean that any and all technologies can, and will, be used for military, directly or indirectly. As you say, "If it can be used in society it can be used in war". But this is not a good argument against technology or research.