4 ms·

I don't think we can unwind it so simply. The basic consequences of technology are not new. The scale and asymmetry are. It shifts power around and changes who

I don't think we can unwind it so simply. The basic consequences of technology are not new. The scale and asymmetry are. It shifts power around and changes who can make decisions about what happens. Of course we are responsible for our inventions. Oppenheimer and co. lived with the most dramatic weight of such decisions. No one solely blames the president who went ahead with dropping the bombs. It took thousands of people making a conscious effort to build and deploy the technology. In a sense we all own that to this day. But at it's heart it is and always will be driven by the choices of people. As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof.

sooheon 9y ago
I think you missed the point of the parent. The idea of an atom bomb did not enter Truman's mind out of the blue sky. People create technology, and that in turn influences decisions. The types of technology we surround ourselves will in turn shape us, and the further decisions we make. It's more intertwined than a simple "force multiplier", it's also a force director in a way.
jonahx 9y ago
The point is easier to see with things like the printing press, the personal computer, cell phones, or even facebook... > As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof. The collective will of human beings is helpless in the face of such technologies. To act as if we have control over the changes they produce deeply misunderstands the situation.
mseebach 9y ago
Guns and nuclear bombs are still "just" force multipliers, but they are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. The problem isn't that trivial conclusion in isolation, it's what happens in a multi-actor game, where the other players have significantly higher badness than yourself. Despicable as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, had Hitler or Stalin gotten the bomb first, there's a substantial risk of a much, much worse outcome. Stalin did get the bomb, but MAD ensured that he never used it. That is also a force multiplier. Same dilemma for guns: could you remove all guns from everyone at once (except cops and perhaps carefully trained, background-checked, mentally sound, and clean-criminal-record holding citizens, and without going door-to-door Iraqi-counter-insurgency-style), it would probably be quite simple to get a clear majority for doing it. But you can't, and so removing the guns means removing them from people for whom they represent the least of a negatively multiplied force. Hence the slogan, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.
- Simon_says 9y ago
  > [Guns and nuclear bombs] are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. Whether this statement is true is not clear. The time since multiple countries have had nuclear weapons has been one of the most peaceful times in human history. You can't just look at all the times guns and bombs are used, you have to also include all the times they have been there and not used.
  - mseebach 9y ago
    Yeah, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. Using a gun/bomb is overwhelmingly negative, having one is significantly more ambiguous.

sooheon 9y ago

I think you missed the point of the parent. The idea of an atom bomb did not enter Truman's mind out of the blue sky. People create technology, and that in turn influences decisions. The types of technology we surround ourselves will in turn shape us, and the further decisions we make. It's more intertwined than a simple "force multiplier", it's also a force director in a way.

jonahx 9y ago

The point is easier to see with things like the printing press, the personal computer, cell phones, or even facebook... > As long as we agree that our will as human beings exceeds that of technology, then it is people doing the changing, whether thru build of tech or use thereof. The collective will of human beings is helpless in the face of such technologies. To act as if we have control over the changes they produce deeply misunderstands the situation.

mseebach 9y ago

Guns and nuclear bombs are still "just" force multipliers, but they are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. The problem isn't that trivial conclusion in isolation, it's what happens in a multi-actor game, where the other players have significantly higher badness than yourself. Despicable as the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was, had Hitler or Stalin gotten the bomb first, there's a substantial risk of a much, much worse outcome. Stalin did get the bomb, but MAD ensured that he never used it. That is also a force multiplier. Same dilemma for guns: could you remove all guns from everyone at once (except cops and perhaps carefully trained, background-checked, mentally sound, and clean-criminal-record holding citizens, and without going door-to-door Iraqi-counter-insurgency-style), it would probably be quite simple to get a clear majority for doing it. But you can't, and so removing the guns means removing them from people for whom they represent the least of a negatively multiplied force. Hence the slogan, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.

Simon_says 9y ago
> [Guns and nuclear bombs] are multipliers of predominantly or even overwhelmingly negative forces. Whether this statement is true is not clear. The time since multiple countries have had nuclear weapons has been one of the most peaceful times in human history. You can't just look at all the times guns and bombs are used, you have to also include all the times they have been there and not used.
- mseebach 9y ago
  Yeah, that's the distinction I'm trying to make. Using a gun/bomb is overwhelmingly negative, having one is significantly more ambiguous.