7 ms·

What's so hard to understand? I'm an aerospace engineer and I specialize in rockets. I understand that the nature of my work will almost always 100% benefit th

What's so hard to understand? I'm an aerospace engineer and I specialize in rockets. I understand that the nature of my work will almost always 100% benefit the weapons industry because there's just no avoiding it. When I started my career ~10 years ago I worked on a defense project as I was a fresh graduate and had no choice, but nowadays I make it very clear to prospective companies that while I have no issues with my colleagues working on weapons, I myself will absolutely, under no circumstances, work on defense funded projects in any capacity. Most companies from my experience are willing to work with you on this especially because a lot of them are already set up for segregated access. The fault in your thinking is that you seem to think it needs to be an "all or nothing" choice. It's not, and it doesn't need to be. I try to be green and recycle everything I can, but I don't lose sleep over throwing plastic away in the garbage because I do what I can. I'm 99% vegetarian because of my views on animal ethics and I honestly can't remember the last time I've bought meat for my personal consumption, but I have no qualms about going to a friend's backyard BBQ and eating the same grilled burgers that everyone else is enjoying because I do what I can. For this reason, I choose to not work directly on weapons, despite the fact that basically all rocket related technologies can be applied to weapons, because that is something that I can not change, so I do what I can, which in this case is refusing to work on defense funded projects.

hueving 8y ago
But you're clearly not doing what you can. You're just doing what's convenient. You still eat meat in one of the most important times not to eat meat (in front of others) if you are truly driven by ethics for animals. You refuse to work on defense-funded projects because companies in your field have a pretend isolation mechanism (here's a hint: unless they are actually separate companies, they aren't isolated) that allows you to think you aren't supporting the military despite working for the company supporting the military. This type of behavior shocks idealists. Even though it's better than nothing, just doing little bits here and there where convenient actually makes it harder to change the status quo for idealists (because you think you're helping when you're not).
- _vertigo 8y ago
  Clearly he is rejecting the idealist viewpoint, so what does it matter if what he is saying “shocks idealists”?
  - hueving 8y ago
    He asked "what's so hard to understand?" so I explained.
- micheldlebeau 8y ago
  Maybe the issue is with idealists, having a white or black view of the world, then?
- Melkman 8y ago
  Then, as an idealist, what do you expect from other people to reach your goal ? If 50% of the people do 80% of what is needed you're at 40% of your goal. If 10% of the people do 100% you're only at 10% plus you've turned your goal in to an "us vs them" instead of "everybody for the greater good". Voting with your wallet 80% of the time is a valid means to support what you think is right. An idealistic minority doesn't change the world. The majority does.
  - grepsign 8y ago
    Exactly. I think a more CS way to think about it is shipping out a MVP vs. shipping out a 100% perfect, 100% feature complete, 100% bug free, 100% documented, product. I think everybody would be happy to start a project and ship out that 100% finished product, but you'll spend your entire life working on this and die without succeeding because it doesn't exist. So the choices are to 1) not bother, 2) do what you can (MVP), or 3) work until you die as a failure. OP would want me to choose 1 or 3, it seems.
  - obelix_ 8y ago
    Well done. Great logic. The majority can also prop up a Kim Kardashian and Trump who met in the Whitehouse today and took a nice selfie. Those two idealists are taking your majority for great ride pal.
fpoling 8y ago
This argument assumes that working for US military is worse ethically than what Google does. Short term it is, but longer term I am not so sure.
zapita 8y ago
> I'm an aerospace engineer and I specialize in rockets. I understand that the nature of my work will almost always 100% benefit the weapons industry because there's just no avoiding it. Those people are software engineers. Unlike you, they could have easily found equivalent jobs elsewhere (almost anywhere) that did not contribute to building a worldwide surveillance network in the name of serving better ads. I agree with GP that it takes a wacky moral compass to willingly engage in mass surveillance but feel strongly enough about weapons to quit over them. It's either very naive, hypocritical, or both.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- naasking 8y ago
  > I agree with GP that it takes a wacky moral compass to willingly engage in mass surveillance but feel strongly enough about weapons to quit over them. It's either very naive, hypocritical, or both. I don't see why it's inconsistent. They don't want to be complicit in physical violence and death, but surveillance leads to neither.
  - calbear81 8y ago
    Surveillance does lead to that if it's how we identify where someone is located or leads to actionable intelligence which can then be used as justification for dropping a missile from the sky.
    - sangnoir 8y ago
      Name a single industry or product that can't be a starting point of a chain that ends in a missible dropping from the sky.
    - naasking 8y ago
      1. Being curt with someone can lead to them going home and beating their spouse to vent their frustrations. Should we then never be curt because it might lead to domestic abuse? How improbable does the outcome need to be before this kind of argument is considered invalid? 2. Dragnet surveillance alone cannot lead to actionable intelligence, it can only be used to confirm other sources of intelligence. The false positive rate is simply too high. Would they still drop that bomb without that surveillance? In most cases, probably. 3. Weapons have only one purpose: to physically harm. Surveillance can have many legitimate purposes. They simply aren't directly comparable.
more_corn 8y ago
This is the key. Your actions matter. You should do the best you can. And the best you can probably includes never working on weapons. That should apply to all of us, but each person must decide. What is the best you can do?

hueving 8y ago

But you're clearly not doing what you can. You're just doing what's convenient. You still eat meat in one of the most important times not to eat meat (in front of others) if you are truly driven by ethics for animals. You refuse to work on defense-funded projects because companies in your field have a pretend isolation mechanism (here's a hint: unless they are actually separate companies, they aren't isolated) that allows you to think you aren't supporting the military despite working for the company supporting the military. This type of behavior shocks idealists. Even though it's better than nothing, just doing little bits here and there where convenient actually makes it harder to change the status quo for idealists (because you think you're helping when you're not).

_vertigo 8y ago
Clearly he is rejecting the idealist viewpoint, so what does it matter if what he is saying “shocks idealists”?
- hueving 8y ago
  He asked "what's so hard to understand?" so I explained.
micheldlebeau 8y ago
Maybe the issue is with idealists, having a white or black view of the world, then?
Melkman 8y ago
Then, as an idealist, what do you expect from other people to reach your goal ? If 50% of the people do 80% of what is needed you're at 40% of your goal. If 10% of the people do 100% you're only at 10% plus you've turned your goal in to an "us vs them" instead of "everybody for the greater good". Voting with your wallet 80% of the time is a valid means to support what you think is right. An idealistic minority doesn't change the world. The majority does.
- grepsign 8y ago
  Exactly. I think a more CS way to think about it is shipping out a MVP vs. shipping out a 100% perfect, 100% feature complete, 100% bug free, 100% documented, product. I think everybody would be happy to start a project and ship out that 100% finished product, but you'll spend your entire life working on this and die without succeeding because it doesn't exist. So the choices are to 1) not bother, 2) do what you can (MVP), or 3) work until you die as a failure. OP would want me to choose 1 or 3, it seems.
- obelix_ 8y ago
  Well done. Great logic. The majority can also prop up a Kim Kardashian and Trump who met in the Whitehouse today and took a nice selfie. Those two idealists are taking your majority for great ride pal.

fpoling 8y ago

This argument assumes that working for US military is worse ethically than what Google does. Short term it is, but longer term I am not so sure.

zapita 8y ago

> I'm an aerospace engineer and I specialize in rockets. I understand that the nature of my work will almost always 100% benefit the weapons industry because there's just no avoiding it. Those people are software engineers. Unlike you, they could have easily found equivalent jobs elsewhere (almost anywhere) that did not contribute to building a worldwide surveillance network in the name of serving better ads. I agree with GP that it takes a wacky moral compass to willingly engage in mass surveillance but feel strongly enough about weapons to quit over them. It's either very naive, hypocritical, or both.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
naasking 8y ago
> I agree with GP that it takes a wacky moral compass to willingly engage in mass surveillance but feel strongly enough about weapons to quit over them. It's either very naive, hypocritical, or both. I don't see why it's inconsistent. They don't want to be complicit in physical violence and death, but surveillance leads to neither.
- calbear81 8y ago
  Surveillance does lead to that if it's how we identify where someone is located or leads to actionable intelligence which can then be used as justification for dropping a missile from the sky.
  - sangnoir 8y ago
    Name a single industry or product that can't be a starting point of a chain that ends in a missible dropping from the sky.
  - naasking 8y ago
    1. Being curt with someone can lead to them going home and beating their spouse to vent their frustrations. Should we then never be curt because it might lead to domestic abuse? How improbable does the outcome need to be before this kind of argument is considered invalid? 2. Dragnet surveillance alone cannot lead to actionable intelligence, it can only be used to confirm other sources of intelligence. The false positive rate is simply too high. Would they still drop that bomb without that surveillance? In most cases, probably. 3. Weapons have only one purpose: to physically harm. Surveillance can have many legitimate purposes. They simply aren't directly comparable.

more_corn 8y ago

This is the key. Your actions matter. You should do the best you can. And the best you can probably includes never working on weapons. That should apply to all of us, but each person must decide. What is the best you can do?