3 ms·

Kind of interesting to contrast this with the attitude of earlier generations of technological innovators. Archimedes developed catapults and canons to fight i

Kind of interesting to contrast this with the attitude of earlier generations of technological innovators. Archimedes developed catapults and canons to fight invading Romans. Leonardo Da Vinci designed war machines, including a giant crossbow. I don’t recall the details, but many European mathematicians in the 18th and 19th centuries rushed to help their countries develop weaponry, which they saw as a sort of patriotic duty. Alan Turing helped invent the computer as part of a military effort. John von Neumann, besides also helping to invent the computer in a military effort, was also an expert in nuclear warheads and work in the Manhattan Project. Richard Feynman worked on ballistics calculations during WWII and then after Pearl Harbir he worked on enriching Uranium for the Manhattan Project. In the 1950s, Gordon Moore (cofounder of Intel) and Robert Noyce created Fairchild Semiconductor, which practically created Silicon Valley and the transistor. The first transistors sold by Fairchild were used in the B70 bomber. Needless to say, the list goes on.

bertil 8y ago
I think that Google is developing weapons, but in the form of spam detectors, face recognition and Geo IP technology. They might not sell them (they don’t need to) but the open-source nature makes using those in an information war far easier. A lot of Facebook’s effort to track whether Russian agents purchased ads space, how they fostered dissent with controversial groups, etc. all that false under a new military “space” (neither ground, sea or air). Friends of mine who work in security hate the idea of calling it “cyber”, but “information” seems appropriate: cultivating journalists and influencers is key for instance. It’s a war against democratic institutions more than population, but it affect power quite directly. What Google refused to do was to attach military technology from a previous era (explosive, kinetic weapons) to their own work (face recognition) because they find that abhorrent. That’s actually not the first time: the use of wild animals, poisons, children and later radioactive material and nerve agents in war has been decried by military technologists since Archimedes — generally around the idea of a cleaner violence.
- forgot-my-pw 8y ago
  By that description, any technology can be used as a weapon of crime or war.
robertAngst 8y ago
I dont want to say humanity is different, but I think its time to change culture. I think we went from Hunter Gatherer where land ownership didnt matter to Agriculture where land ownership was everything to enlightenment to post war due to WMDs. War will kill us all with this new technology, there are people still alive today that were born before Nuclear weapons.
emodendroket 8y ago
There's something right below the surface that I think the discussions are all glossing over: the difference here is that the United States is conducting wars all over the world with enemies who may threaten, in some conception of the term, American interests, but who present little to no threat to American domestic security. If the US were being invaded I doubt you'd see so much squeamishness.
- chiefalchemist 8y ago
  > "...who may threaten, in some conception of the term, American interests..." Let's not be naive. "Amwrican interests" is a euphemism for "revenue and potential revenue of America's rich and powerful." For example, history is clear on Afghanistan. A "conventional war" doesn't work there. But if you want to reap the rewards of all the untapped natural resources __and__ you're not footing the bill for the military's efforts then you simply command your puppet(s) to give it a shot. The only loss is the lives of someone else's kids.
  - riskneutral 8y ago
    > "Amwrican interests" is a euphemism for "revenue and potential revenue of America's rich and powerful." I have news for you. In geopolitics, “interests” has always meant primarily economic interests, and economic interests have always been of greatest relevance to the rich. Take the great powers on the eve of World War 1, as an example. Britain had “interests” in Egypt. Russia had “interests” in Turkey. The United States has “interests” in Panama. Millions of people died for these “interests” in WWI. What is meant by “interests” here is business interests. Specifically, Britain seized Egypt in order to control the Suez canal, which was important because it connects the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and British merchants exported goods to Asia through the canal. All of Russia’s exports had to go through the Turkish straights (controlled by the Ottomans at the time), which connect the Black and Mediterranean Seas. The United States was interested in Panama of course because the Panama Canal was a major conduit of maritime trade between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Such “strategic interests” are the reason behind every war ever fought, it may not be right but it’s nothing unique to the US.
benbreen 8y ago
Worth mentioning that da Vinci was a vegetarian animal lover who became obsessed with the destruction of the earth toward the end of his life, repeatedly producing "deluge" drawings of flood waters overtaking the world. He also spent ten months with the Florentine army as preparation for painting the Battle of Anghiari which is pretty clearly an anti-war painting designed to dismay the viewer ("Show someone using his hand as a shield for his terrified eyes... Make the dead, some half buried in the dust, others with the dust all mingled with the oozing blood and changing into crimson mud.") There's also a theory that he intentionally saboutaged the designs for some of his military machines, although I personally am not convinced by the evidence. [1] [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415660/Leonardo-da-Vincis-war-machines-were-failures-by-design.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415660/Leonardo-da-...

bertil 8y ago

I think that Google is developing weapons, but in the form of spam detectors, face recognition and Geo IP technology. They might not sell them (they don’t need to) but the open-source nature makes using those in an information war far easier. A lot of Facebook’s effort to track whether Russian agents purchased ads space, how they fostered dissent with controversial groups, etc. all that false under a new military “space” (neither ground, sea or air). Friends of mine who work in security hate the idea of calling it “cyber”, but “information” seems appropriate: cultivating journalists and influencers is key for instance. It’s a war against democratic institutions more than population, but it affect power quite directly. What Google refused to do was to attach military technology from a previous era (explosive, kinetic weapons) to their own work (face recognition) because they find that abhorrent. That’s actually not the first time: the use of wild animals, poisons, children and later radioactive material and nerve agents in war has been decried by military technologists since Archimedes — generally around the idea of a cleaner violence.

forgot-my-pw 8y ago
By that description, any technology can be used as a weapon of crime or war.

robertAngst 8y ago

I dont want to say humanity is different, but I think its time to change culture. I think we went from Hunter Gatherer where land ownership didnt matter to Agriculture where land ownership was everything to enlightenment to post war due to WMDs. War will kill us all with this new technology, there are people still alive today that were born before Nuclear weapons.

emodendroket 8y ago

There's something right below the surface that I think the discussions are all glossing over: the difference here is that the United States is conducting wars all over the world with enemies who may threaten, in some conception of the term, American interests, but who present little to no threat to American domestic security. If the US were being invaded I doubt you'd see so much squeamishness.

chiefalchemist 8y ago
> "...who may threaten, in some conception of the term, American interests..." Let's not be naive. "Amwrican interests" is a euphemism for "revenue and potential revenue of America's rich and powerful." For example, history is clear on Afghanistan. A "conventional war" doesn't work there. But if you want to reap the rewards of all the untapped natural resources __and__ you're not footing the bill for the military's efforts then you simply command your puppet(s) to give it a shot. The only loss is the lives of someone else's kids.
- riskneutral 8y ago
  > "Amwrican interests" is a euphemism for "revenue and potential revenue of America's rich and powerful." I have news for you. In geopolitics, “interests” has always meant primarily economic interests, and economic interests have always been of greatest relevance to the rich. Take the great powers on the eve of World War 1, as an example. Britain had “interests” in Egypt. Russia had “interests” in Turkey. The United States has “interests” in Panama. Millions of people died for these “interests” in WWI. What is meant by “interests” here is business interests. Specifically, Britain seized Egypt in order to control the Suez canal, which was important because it connects the Atlantic and Indian Oceans, and British merchants exported goods to Asia through the canal. All of Russia’s exports had to go through the Turkish straights (controlled by the Ottomans at the time), which connect the Black and Mediterranean Seas. The United States was interested in Panama of course because the Panama Canal was a major conduit of maritime trade between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Such “strategic interests” are the reason behind every war ever fought, it may not be right but it’s nothing unique to the US.

benbreen 8y ago

Worth mentioning that da Vinci was a vegetarian animal lover who became obsessed with the destruction of the earth toward the end of his life, repeatedly producing "deluge" drawings of flood waters overtaking the world. He also spent ten months with the Florentine army as preparation for painting the Battle of Anghiari which is pretty clearly an anti-war painting designed to dismay the viewer ("Show someone using his hand as a shield for his terrified eyes... Make the dead, some half buried in the dust, others with the dust all mingled with the oozing blood and changing into crimson mud.") There's also a theory that he intentionally saboutaged the designs for some of his military machines, although I personally am not convinced by the evidence. [1] [1] https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415660/Leonardo-da-Vincis-war-machines-were-failures-by-design.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1415660/Leonardo-da-...