31 ms·

Yes, the arguments you outline would also be ways to reduce cognitive dissonance as well ("if we didn't do it, others would"). I don't think Google would stop

Yes, the arguments you outline would also be ways to reduce cognitive dissonance as well ("if we didn't do it, others would"). I don't think Google would stop all wars by not contributing to this project. But Google, and the employees who work at Google, has power - a kind of power that's very, very different from my power as an individual when paying taxes or when voting for a federal employee (behaviors that create dissonance for me because they contribute to the war machine). I think that power can, and should, be used to prevent wars - not to make them "cleaner". The small attempt at organizing protests made by some employees at the company was a good step, but the only one I have heard of (maybe there have been others?) and I want the people who have the most access to power to start thinking about what they are doing and trying to make more positive changes. Consume less. Be more mindful of environmental damage. Speak out against the oppressive regimes that help murder people.

flatline 8y ago
I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the power to stop a war by executing key individuals in a scenario where a manned strike would be prohibitive? And yet there is a clear moral hazard of facilitating murder. I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. I choose not to work on projects like that but I have trouble condemning some of these things out of hand.
- fakescience 8y ago
  Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
- pizza234 8y ago
  > I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...
  - Quarrelsome 8y ago
    I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
      >> I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Same for a hospital (patching up wounded enemy combatants) or a school (educating future insurgents). Or a nursery, football stadium, shopping mall, etc etc...
- odabaxok 8y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM

flatline 8y ago

I basically agree with the last points. As to the drone strikes, I believe there is potential there for decent things. Who is to say these would not grant the power to stop a war by executing key individuals in a scenario where a manned strike would be prohibitive? And yet there is a clear moral hazard of facilitating murder. I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. I choose not to work on projects like that but I have trouble condemning some of these things out of hand.

fakescience 8y ago
Yeah, I think we have a fundamental difference in our beliefs about the effectiveness of violence (i.e. assassination via drones) to promote world peace. Hard to know what wars have been prevented via assassination, but if you might look into all the evidence of violence continuing or escalating after assassinations (how many "heads" of ISIS have been killed in drone strikes? and check out all the US activity in Latin America...). But that discussion goes beyond the graveyard of a hacker news comments section. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful responses.
pizza234 8y ago
> I’m not wise enough to see where the balance lies. Oh, there is actually a very clearcut line for this; it's coincisively described by the following headline: "If a Drone Strike Hit an American Wedding, We'd Ground Our Fleet"[⁰] [⁰] https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-drone-strike-hit-an-american-wedding-wed-ground-our-fleet/282373/ https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/12/if-a-dr...
- Quarrelsome 8y ago
  I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Also Middle Eastern weddings can occasionally be mis-interpreted as militant given the propensity for arms fire in celebration. If a drone strike hit an American wedding they would ground their _home_ fleet. Its a key difference. The information for an electorate of a democratic state to make more empathetic choices are available its just a question of whether: * The electorate are wilfully ignorant of foreign suffering (as its tortuous to read) * The electorate are kept ignorant intentionally or unintentionally as a product of the conflict for eye balls between media institutions. * The electorate are not able to make impactful choices due to the type of democracy they have. I'd argue its a bit of every one of those things. I prefer to measure things in outcomes and I would posit the major difference in supplying or not supplying arms to a conflict is merely the level of guilt from the origin of supply. People are still going to die be it by drone, missile, mortar, ak-47 or spear. We could argue that arms sales can enable conflict by giving one side an apparent advantage that they choose to capitalise on but that's a messy problem to investigate. Surely to wish to capitalise means that someone has already drawn the lines and is considering hostilities. What makes a war? The lines being drawn or the weapons or a combination of many factors multiplied over time and key events or decisions made by actors on either side? One may decide to war without advantage, one may choose not to war with advantage. So I don't think its as clear cut as weapon sales == war.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    >> I don't think its that simple. Weddings may constitute a collection of individuals key to a war effort and in striking a wedding one might prevent the devastation of a prolonged conflict. Same for a hospital (patching up wounded enemy combatants) or a school (educating future insurgents). Or a nursery, football stadium, shopping mall, etc etc...
odabaxok 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlO2gcs1YvM