4 ms·

Who are we kidding? Silicon Valley was built on the business of war

18 points by Blognoggle 8y ago

pmdulaney 8y ago
How long before the growing anti-DoD mentality of Silicon Valley turns into disdain and disrespect for the men and women who defend our country? American Giant, you'd better stop giving deals to vets if you want to avoid the wrath of the Silicon Valley Left!
- coldtea 8y ago
  >turns into disdain and disrespect for the men and women who defend our country? Defend? Or usually offend other countries? Aside from Mexico (which was probably itself into defensive mode and had land taken from it) and Japan (re: Pearl Harbor), what credible enemies did the country had that needed defending from in the common sense of the term? (Armies declaring war and attacking it on its soil/borders).
  - pmdulaney 8y ago
    You're right in saying that we have not had many attacks on our soil. But I'm thinking the number might be higher if we didn't have our Armed Forces. We also prevented countries like Great Britain and France (our allies) from becoming part of a greatly enlarged Germany.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      Yeah, we need to separate between the men and women serving, and the army as an establishment (or the military industrial complex). I don't think the latter deserves much royalty -- especially if it's not fighting defensive wars (in its turf) or expansionists (like Nazi Germany), but wars for "national interests".
  - Blognoggle 8y ago
    Well, there was the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe and its annexation of Poland, Hungary, the eastern half of Germany, the dozens of proxy wars that were fought between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the space race, and a thousand other Cold War battles that were waged but never declared. Despite what you may have heard, it is not better to be red than dead.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      And the "the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe" was the business of the US, and not Eastern Europe itself, because? Not to mention that the US army never fought the USSR in Eastern Europe. Or that Eastern Europe was more or less divided by the allies with USSR, as if it was their own property -- and that the US occupied the western half of Germany (and Japan). Left to its own devices, the USSR wouldn't have "eastern Europe" and couldn't afford to get it after the huge WWII cost it paid. But it was given to it, with the western allies pretending to believe BS assurances about Stalin allowing democratic elections there. It was convenient for all sides to get their grubby hands on their side (eastern/western) of the battle-torn Europe.
    - gowld 8y ago
      Which of those things were worse than being dead?
  - jriot 8y ago
    The US Navy ensures shipping lanes are protected. Without them globalized trade would be much harder.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      We had global trade for millennia, even without something like the Roman Empire to guarantee it, so I somehow doubt that. We also have actual laws about sea routes, and global bodies like the UN that could, if there was an actual need, do something about it.
  - tathougies 8y ago
    Are you talking about the entirety of American history. Assuming you are due to the Mexican American war, there are a few examples: 1. The United Kingdom, and thus Canada, during the War of 1812. 2. Germany in World War I, via the Zimmermann telegram. Although rejected by the Mexican government, the threat was absolutely credible. 3. The Barbary Pirates. Protecting American shipping interests is protecting the country as well, as well as an attack on American territory. 4. Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. Again, attacks on an embassy/diplomatic mission constitute an attack on sovereignty, especially when those attacks are directed against Americans.
- tracker1 8y ago
  I'm far more pro military than I'd say at least half the country. It's one of the few things I think the Federal gov't should cover. That said, the size, scope, scale and long-standing state of the US military is far from ideal. The idea that we fly armed drones over sovereign nations without those country's without a declaration of war against said country is deplorable and I wouldn't want China, Russia, Mexico or other nations to do so over U.S. soil to drop bombs/missiles here. Regardless of the reasons, it's not cool. (strong-armed approval from foreign countries, or permission/payment etc is still not ethical imho) Not to mention the shear mentality and escalation of cyber warfare, security and domestic spying programs being abused at all levels of govt and shared with private industry. Not just in the US, but a lot of it got worse after US's broad use (stuxnet, etc). I have nothing but respect for those in the military. I feel that we should absolutely invest in technology that improves or comoditizes usage. That said, the military should be a fraction of what it is, and our spending even more so. I think most government intervention all around should be significantly reduced. Every time someone in govt tries to come up with a system to do anything, the unintended consequences eventually become worse than the issues they are trying to correct for.
- bdcravens 8y ago
  The freedom to have, and express, that mentality is precisely why we maintain that military that those men and women serve.
ebcode 8y ago
> What is missing in much of the recent discussion about engaging with the Pentagon is the simple fact that there probably wouldn’t be a Silicon Valley as we know it without government defense contracts. Times change. The DoD is not what it used to be, and neither is the technology being developed. When the DoD was funding SRI and Douglas Engelbart, as I understand it, that money was going to "basic research". So the money was flowing, and the researchers could go in whatever direction seemed the most promising. Now, the contracts are more specific, and what the DoD wants has transformed from something like "do what thou wilt" into "do what we say." The government nowadays is always trying to do "another manhattan project", but the trouble with that is that during the original manhattan project, our country had the moral high-ground -- because we were fighting actual nazis -- and that was the entire reason that the best and brightest minds of that generation were able to come together to work on the bomb. But anyone who, today, thinks that our country has the moral high-ground is either 1) closer in their thinking -- ideologically -- to the original nazis, or 2) they just stepped out of a time machine from the 1940s.
blacksmith_tb 8y ago
A theme developed at much greater depth in Yasha Levine's recent book[1]. 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34220713-surveillance-valley https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34220713-surveillance-va...
crunchyfrog 8y ago
This article seems like a giant non-sequitur. Just because Silicon Valley was founded with investment from the military doesn't require they continue to take this investment. Georgetown University was saved financially by selling slaves, I hardly think anyone would argue that this fact means they should continue to deal with slave traders. You can certainly argue these companies/employees are being naive or unpatriotic or whatever but Silicon Valley's original source of funding is irrelevant to this discussion.
gnode 8y ago
> The naysayers appear to sincerely believe that AI is different from previous dual-use technology and that the many things that could go wrong create a true existential crisis. Arguably this has already happened. Since the development of nuclear weapons there has been a human-built existential threat.

18 points by Blognoggle 8y ago

How long before the growing anti-DoD mentality of Silicon Valley turns into disdain and disrespect for the men and women who defend our country? American Giant, you'd better stop giving deals to vets if you want to avoid the wrath of the Silicon Valley Left!

coldtea 8y ago
>turns into disdain and disrespect for the men and women who defend our country? Defend? Or usually offend other countries? Aside from Mexico (which was probably itself into defensive mode and had land taken from it) and Japan (re: Pearl Harbor), what credible enemies did the country had that needed defending from in the common sense of the term? (Armies declaring war and attacking it on its soil/borders).
- pmdulaney 8y ago
  You're right in saying that we have not had many attacks on our soil. But I'm thinking the number might be higher if we didn't have our Armed Forces. We also prevented countries like Great Britain and France (our allies) from becoming part of a greatly enlarged Germany.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    Yeah, we need to separate between the men and women serving, and the army as an establishment (or the military industrial complex). I don't think the latter deserves much royalty -- especially if it's not fighting defensive wars (in its turf) or expansionists (like Nazi Germany), but wars for "national interests".
- Blognoggle 8y ago
  Well, there was the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe and its annexation of Poland, Hungary, the eastern half of Germany, the dozens of proxy wars that were fought between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, the space race, and a thousand other Cold War battles that were waged but never declared. Despite what you may have heard, it is not better to be red than dead.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    And the "the Soviet expansion into Eastern Europe" was the business of the US, and not Eastern Europe itself, because? Not to mention that the US army never fought the USSR in Eastern Europe. Or that Eastern Europe was more or less divided by the allies with USSR, as if it was their own property -- and that the US occupied the western half of Germany (and Japan). Left to its own devices, the USSR wouldn't have "eastern Europe" and couldn't afford to get it after the huge WWII cost it paid. But it was given to it, with the western allies pretending to believe BS assurances about Stalin allowing democratic elections there. It was convenient for all sides to get their grubby hands on their side (eastern/western) of the battle-torn Europe.
  - gowld 8y ago
    Which of those things were worse than being dead?
- jriot 8y ago
  The US Navy ensures shipping lanes are protected. Without them globalized trade would be much harder.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    We had global trade for millennia, even without something like the Roman Empire to guarantee it, so I somehow doubt that. We also have actual laws about sea routes, and global bodies like the UN that could, if there was an actual need, do something about it.
- tathougies 8y ago
  Are you talking about the entirety of American history. Assuming you are due to the Mexican American war, there are a few examples: 1. The United Kingdom, and thus Canada, during the War of 1812. 2. Germany in World War I, via the Zimmermann telegram. Although rejected by the Mexican government, the threat was absolutely credible. 3. The Barbary Pirates. Protecting American shipping interests is protecting the country as well, as well as an attack on American territory. 4. Iran during the Iranian hostage crisis. Again, attacks on an embassy/diplomatic mission constitute an attack on sovereignty, especially when those attacks are directed against Americans.
tracker1 8y ago
I'm far more pro military than I'd say at least half the country. It's one of the few things I think the Federal gov't should cover. That said, the size, scope, scale and long-standing state of the US military is far from ideal. The idea that we fly armed drones over sovereign nations without those country's without a declaration of war against said country is deplorable and I wouldn't want China, Russia, Mexico or other nations to do so over U.S. soil to drop bombs/missiles here. Regardless of the reasons, it's not cool. (strong-armed approval from foreign countries, or permission/payment etc is still not ethical imho) Not to mention the shear mentality and escalation of cyber warfare, security and domestic spying programs being abused at all levels of govt and shared with private industry. Not just in the US, but a lot of it got worse after US's broad use (stuxnet, etc). I have nothing but respect for those in the military. I feel that we should absolutely invest in technology that improves or comoditizes usage. That said, the military should be a fraction of what it is, and our spending even more so. I think most government intervention all around should be significantly reduced. Every time someone in govt tries to come up with a system to do anything, the unintended consequences eventually become worse than the issues they are trying to correct for.
bdcravens 8y ago
The freedom to have, and express, that mentality is precisely why we maintain that military that those men and women serve.

ebcode 8y ago

> What is missing in much of the recent discussion about engaging with the Pentagon is the simple fact that there probably wouldn’t be a Silicon Valley as we know it without government defense contracts. Times change. The DoD is not what it used to be, and neither is the technology being developed. When the DoD was funding SRI and Douglas Engelbart, as I understand it, that money was going to "basic research". So the money was flowing, and the researchers could go in whatever direction seemed the most promising. Now, the contracts are more specific, and what the DoD wants has transformed from something like "do what thou wilt" into "do what we say." The government nowadays is always trying to do "another manhattan project", but the trouble with that is that during the original manhattan project, our country had the moral high-ground -- because we were fighting actual nazis -- and that was the entire reason that the best and brightest minds of that generation were able to come together to work on the bomb. But anyone who, today, thinks that our country has the moral high-ground is either 1) closer in their thinking -- ideologically -- to the original nazis, or 2) they just stepped out of a time machine from the 1940s.

blacksmith_tb 8y ago

A theme developed at much greater depth in Yasha Levine's recent book[1]. 1: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34220713-surveillance-valley https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/34220713-surveillance-va...

crunchyfrog 8y ago

This article seems like a giant non-sequitur. Just because Silicon Valley was founded with investment from the military doesn't require they continue to take this investment. Georgetown University was saved financially by selling slaves, I hardly think anyone would argue that this fact means they should continue to deal with slave traders. You can certainly argue these companies/employees are being naive or unpatriotic or whatever but Silicon Valley's original source of funding is irrelevant to this discussion.

gnode 8y ago

> The naysayers appear to sincerely believe that AI is different from previous dual-use technology and that the many things that could go wrong create a true existential crisis. Arguably this has already happened. Since the development of nuclear weapons there has been a human-built existential threat.