4 ms·

I'd find completely awesome if it weren't for tools aimed at killing people. I'm not sure I enjoy advances in that area.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago
It's just as easy to say it is a tool designed to save lives. Ultimately it's a tool, it's how you use it that's important.
- ffxtian 9y ago
  Just as easy maybe, but fundamentally incorrect. Its mechanism of action is killing people -- choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool.
  - thomastjeffery 9y ago
    The goal of the mechanism is to kill fewer people than other available methods. Tools are, simply put, devices that increase a user's leverage. We live in a world full of tools capable of leveraging against life. We also live in a world with individuals and groups who - for whatever reasons - choose to use that leverage. We can't get rid of tools like this. They are very straightforward inventions, especially as technical knowledge increases. The simplest nuclear fission reactor is a bomb. That does not make nuclear fission fundamentally worthless, and whether you agree that knowledge about it is a "good" or not, that knowledge is not going to simply disappear. > choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool. How a tool is used does not change what it is or what it does. It does, however, define the purpose. If the purpose of killing someone is to prevent that individual from taking another life - or several other lives - then the purpose of the tool used is to save lives. The goal for perfecting a tool that is to be used for that purpose is to minimize the amount of lives taken, and damage done. That means a "better" bomb takes fewer lives, saving more. If you choose to believe that an individual taking action against the life of another has not forfeit his/her own right to live, then you might consider this tool to have no legitimate purpose. Frankly, I disagree, and hope you will reconsider.
ythn 9y ago
Well, the alternative to PGMs is a lot more collateral damage. Want to take out that bridge? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. Want to take out that factory? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. With PGMs you can take out a bridge with pinpoint accuracy in the middle of the night and nobody dies at all (directly, at least).
dejawu 9y ago
My crypto professor made a point that stuck with me: There are many many problems that are, from an engineering standpoint, really cool and fun to solve, but can only really be used to harm or kill people. Building MIRVs or cluster bombs probably scratches the itches of a lot of aerospace engineers, but you're still using your design chops to build things that end lives.

AdamJacobMuller 9y ago

It's just as easy to say it is a tool designed to save lives. Ultimately it's a tool, it's how you use it that's important.

ffxtian 9y ago
Just as easy maybe, but fundamentally incorrect. Its mechanism of action is killing people -- choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool.
- thomastjeffery 9y ago
  The goal of the mechanism is to kill fewer people than other available methods. Tools are, simply put, devices that increase a user's leverage. We live in a world full of tools capable of leveraging against life. We also live in a world with individuals and groups who - for whatever reasons - choose to use that leverage. We can't get rid of tools like this. They are very straightforward inventions, especially as technical knowledge increases. The simplest nuclear fission reactor is a bomb. That does not make nuclear fission fundamentally worthless, and whether you agree that knowledge about it is a "good" or not, that knowledge is not going to simply disappear. > choosing to believe the claim that killing those people will save lives alters neither the purpose nor MO of the tool. How a tool is used does not change what it is or what it does. It does, however, define the purpose. If the purpose of killing someone is to prevent that individual from taking another life - or several other lives - then the purpose of the tool used is to save lives. The goal for perfecting a tool that is to be used for that purpose is to minimize the amount of lives taken, and damage done. That means a "better" bomb takes fewer lives, saving more. If you choose to believe that an individual taking action against the life of another has not forfeit his/her own right to live, then you might consider this tool to have no legitimate purpose. Frankly, I disagree, and hope you will reconsider.

ythn 9y ago

Well, the alternative to PGMs is a lot more collateral damage. Want to take out that bridge? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. Want to take out that factory? Carpet bomb or dive bomb and hope too many civilians/pilots don't die. With PGMs you can take out a bridge with pinpoint accuracy in the middle of the night and nobody dies at all (directly, at least).

dejawu 9y ago

My crypto professor made a point that stuck with me: There are many many problems that are, from an engineering standpoint, really cool and fun to solve, but can only really be used to harm or kill people. Building MIRVs or cluster bombs probably scratches the itches of a lot of aerospace engineers, but you're still using your design chops to build things that end lives.