3 ms·
> Should we invite influential amish personalities to our confs going forward? Actually, that'd be a great idea. IIRC, the Amish aren't against technology, th
by CharlesColeman 8y ago
> Should we invite influential amish personalities to our confs going forward?
Actually, that'd be a great idea. IIRC, the Amish aren't against technology, they're just against letting new technology haphazardly drive social changes, so they're careful in how they adopt and use it.
For instance one group decided to adopt the telephone, but they were wary of it disrupting family and community social bonds by causing people to shift their focus to other people far away (a practice that is demonstrated writ small when you ignore everyone around you to take a call). They managed the drawback by specifying the community wouldn't have telephones in their homes, but only have one telephone in a little phone booth for everyone to use.
- zelon88 8y agoThat is fascinating, and maybe not the best analogy for what I wanted to communicate. So focusing on just the Google ethics team; if your team can't even agree on the definition of ethical how can it reach consensus on ethics issues?
- crgwbr 8y agoBy discussing it rationally and coming to a consensus. No one has a universal definition of ethics—such a thing is impossible for limited, innately selfish humans (which we all are). And no two people will likely ever agree on every single ethical question presented. But, by discussing something at a round table of thought-diverse people, as long as they are all guided by the principal of wanting to come to agreement, will result in a productive, reasonable compromise. To say that a genuinely well-meaning person shouldn’t be allowed at that table because they disagree with the others is the same as saying you’re fine with biased outcomes, as long as they’re biased towards you.