3 ms·

It goes beyond even that. This tech would likely help save lives more than end them. I used to work for a company that specialized in lightweight life support

It goes beyond even that. This tech would likely help save lives more than end them. I used to work for a company that specialized in lightweight life support devices. Their major customers were mostly military. But their uses were mostly non-combat: natural disaster response, goodwill, etc. Of course not everyone in the military is an expert in medical care, so having something like a hololens and the ability for doctors and trained technicians to guide the situation remotely would literally be a life saving option.

drak0n1c 8y ago
Imagine if American engineers had boycotted weapons development when they saw the effects of napalm in WW2/Vietnam and that's where progress stopped. Governments would still throw napalm and bodies at problems. Many more people would be dead and conflicts would have escalated even further. Overall, refinements in sensors, targeting, and munitions have saved lives.
- daxfohl 8y ago
  Sure, though that's going a little further than I was intending. I mean, there's a point to what you say, but. At the above company we also had an opportunity to take a contract to design a new kind of bomb trigger. We debated for some time but ultimately turned it down. I was on the fence at the time: "if we don't do it someone will ... it's a defense project for national security so it's fine, right? ... etc etc". But ultimately after what has been happening in Yemen I'm SO glad I don't even have to wonder whether it has my name on it.
- austincheney 8y ago
  It think its completely short to blame or qualify ethical distinctions purely upon technology or innovation decisions. Whether those technologies are present or not it still doesn't immediately address more immediate ethical considerations. To solve for that you need formal policies, regulations, or laws in place to govern use, impose oversight, and provide review. I recommend the movie Good Kill as a solid fictional example. The topic in the movie is morally ambiguous and that doesn't change through the movie. It starts out completely ethical, but the ethics go away once the governing processes are removed and consequences follow.

drak0n1c 8y ago

Imagine if American engineers had boycotted weapons development when they saw the effects of napalm in WW2/Vietnam and that's where progress stopped. Governments would still throw napalm and bodies at problems. Many more people would be dead and conflicts would have escalated even further. Overall, refinements in sensors, targeting, and munitions have saved lives.

daxfohl 8y ago
Sure, though that's going a little further than I was intending. I mean, there's a point to what you say, but. At the above company we also had an opportunity to take a contract to design a new kind of bomb trigger. We debated for some time but ultimately turned it down. I was on the fence at the time: "if we don't do it someone will ... it's a defense project for national security so it's fine, right? ... etc etc". But ultimately after what has been happening in Yemen I'm SO glad I don't even have to wonder whether it has my name on it.
austincheney 8y ago
It think its completely short to blame or qualify ethical distinctions purely upon technology or innovation decisions. Whether those technologies are present or not it still doesn't immediately address more immediate ethical considerations. To solve for that you need formal policies, regulations, or laws in place to govern use, impose oversight, and provide review. I recommend the movie Good Kill as a solid fictional example. The topic in the movie is morally ambiguous and that doesn't change through the movie. It starts out completely ethical, but the ethics go away once the governing processes are removed and consequences follow.