4 ms·

same thing with land mines? What about an autonomous drone? Hell, even a bottle of aspirin filled with poison tablets secretly placed on a store shelf could ki

same thing with land mines? What about an autonomous drone? Hell, even a bottle of aspirin filled with poison tablets secretly placed on a store shelf could kill a future serial killer. I believe your judgement mechanism is meaningless. Even the most evil stuff can be used for good, and everything is a tool. A better metric would apply one of the standard ethical frameworks, like utilitarianism or deontological ethics. (Is this technology going to provide a net benefit? / If everyone used this technology would we live in a desirable world?)

hutzlibu 7y ago
A land mine can only be a landmine. A hammer can build and destroy. So it makes sense to ban mines completely, as there is no humane use case. But for facial recognition, I do see valid use cases. So yes, I do agree with OP and rather have the bad use cases banned/regulated. And your metric: "If everyone used this technology would we live in a desirable world?" Totally depends on how it is used. I do see a potential world with facial recognition software and not be a dystopia. I mean, is all Sci-Fi now considered Dystopia? How can for example robots really interact with humans without that technology?
- baddox 7y ago
  A landline could prevent a burglar from walking on my property.
  - IntelMiner 7y ago
    Or it could also kill a pizza delivery boy
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      Or yourself or the people helping you, after you had a stroke and don't remember anymore that and where your placed them.
    - baddox 7y ago
      Right, just like a hammer.
- jdsully 7y ago
  Landmines are a non-trivial factor in South Korea's freedom. For a large portion of their existence the South had an inferior army and economy. Their current might is a more recent phenomena.
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Without doubt, landmines are a effective and cheap killing tool. But they kill or cripple anyone. And the person placing them, usually does not remove them anymore.. so lots of one legged children in the end, as normally (rightfully!) war places see peace again. But with mines being cheap to deploy and removing them beeing very expensive they tend to stay where they are, until your childrens children walk over them as boyscouts. And south corea had US backing as far as I know.
    - jdsully 7y ago
      At the time the landmines were placed the US was at a stalemate with North Korea (and China) - and even the stalemate was pure luck as NATO forces were close to full defeat at many points after China entered the war. US backing did not make their survival a sure thing.
      - hutzlibu 7y ago
        Another interpretation is, that the mines cemented that border.
        jdsully 7y ago
        Yes it did. But the alternative border would have been a unified Korea with the north’s leadership in charge. Whether that is worth the trade off depends on your politics I suppose.
        hutzlibu 7y ago
        Or a tight border for some years and than a reunion like in my country, germany? (even though there were mines on that border, too, but in a limited way that there are no more traces of them today) Anyway, I am still highly sceptical to the claim, that mines prevented a total communist korea. Debating about that is not really constructive. Do you have studies for your claim?
JohnFen 7y ago
Or nukes?
CobrastanJorji 7y ago
I will accept your metaphor as valid if you can present to me a moral use of land mines. I agree with you about autonomous drones. They have many moral uses. Weaponized ones, not so much.
- matz1 7y ago
  That depends on your mortality. I see it morally right to use it on my enemy.
  - ShroudedNight 7y ago
    How does one use them on one's enemy without also using them against the long-term population in their affected area?
    - torstenvl 7y ago
      By ensuring that they have an automatic deactivation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-landmines/u-s-halts-use-of-long-life-landmines-officials-say-idUSTRE71D6F020110214 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-landmines/u-s-halts-u... "While retaining stockpiles, the United States has not used persistent mines for some time. The last field of persistent mines under U.S. control was in Guantanamo, Cuba, and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said."
- baddox 7y ago
  How about enforcing a DMZ?
matz1 7y ago
Yes, same thing with all of that.

hutzlibu 7y ago

A land mine can only be a landmine. A hammer can build and destroy. So it makes sense to ban mines completely, as there is no humane use case. But for facial recognition, I do see valid use cases. So yes, I do agree with OP and rather have the bad use cases banned/regulated. And your metric: "If everyone used this technology would we live in a desirable world?" Totally depends on how it is used. I do see a potential world with facial recognition software and not be a dystopia. I mean, is all Sci-Fi now considered Dystopia? How can for example robots really interact with humans without that technology?

baddox 7y ago
A landline could prevent a burglar from walking on my property.
- IntelMiner 7y ago
  Or it could also kill a pizza delivery boy
  - hutzlibu 7y ago
    Or yourself or the people helping you, after you had a stroke and don't remember anymore that and where your placed them.
  - baddox 7y ago
    Right, just like a hammer.
jdsully 7y ago
Landmines are a non-trivial factor in South Korea's freedom. For a large portion of their existence the South had an inferior army and economy. Their current might is a more recent phenomena.
- hutzlibu 7y ago
  Without doubt, landmines are a effective and cheap killing tool. But they kill or cripple anyone. And the person placing them, usually does not remove them anymore.. so lots of one legged children in the end, as normally (rightfully!) war places see peace again. But with mines being cheap to deploy and removing them beeing very expensive they tend to stay where they are, until your childrens children walk over them as boyscouts. And south corea had US backing as far as I know.
  - jdsully 7y ago
    At the time the landmines were placed the US was at a stalemate with North Korea (and China) - and even the stalemate was pure luck as NATO forces were close to full defeat at many points after China entered the war. US backing did not make their survival a sure thing.
    - hutzlibu 7y ago
      Another interpretation is, that the mines cemented that border.
      - jdsully 7y ago
        Yes it did. But the alternative border would have been a unified Korea with the north’s leadership in charge. Whether that is worth the trade off depends on your politics I suppose.
        hutzlibu 7y ago
        Or a tight border for some years and than a reunion like in my country, germany? (even though there were mines on that border, too, but in a limited way that there are no more traces of them today) Anyway, I am still highly sceptical to the claim, that mines prevented a total communist korea. Debating about that is not really constructive. Do you have studies for your claim?

JohnFen 7y ago

Or nukes?

CobrastanJorji 7y ago

I will accept your metaphor as valid if you can present to me a moral use of land mines. I agree with you about autonomous drones. They have many moral uses. Weaponized ones, not so much.

matz1 7y ago
That depends on your mortality. I see it morally right to use it on my enemy.
- ShroudedNight 7y ago
  How does one use them on one's enemy without also using them against the long-term population in their affected area?
  - torstenvl 7y ago
    By ensuring that they have an automatic deactivation. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-landmines/u-s-halts-use-of-long-life-landmines-officials-say-idUSTRE71D6F020110214 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-landmines/u-s-halts-u... "While retaining stockpiles, the United States has not used persistent mines for some time. The last field of persistent mines under U.S. control was in Guantanamo, Cuba, and was removed in 1999, the State Department official said."
baddox 7y ago
How about enforcing a DMZ?

matz1 7y ago

Yes, same thing with all of that.