7 ms·

As a physicist who is looking for a job, the primary things preventing me from working on defense projects are twofold: 1. Defense systems are, in general, use

by ISL 7y ago

As a physicist who is looking for a job, the primary things preventing me from working on defense projects are twofold: 1. Defense systems are, in general, useful for offense. Unless I can know that the primary utility of an innovation is for good, I cannot work on it. Our only control in the matter is our choice of which innovations to make. I was heartbroken the day I saw a citation of my work in a military application, as it was never the intent of the work. I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day, but won't touch a system that can kill another human unless we are at war. Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that. 2. Defense projects are classified, and classification is the antithesis of science.

kube-system 7y ago
Offensive capabilities aren't linearly related with human death and suffering. It's not even clear whether the relationship is positive or negative.[0] Have you considered the possibility that your work could potentially create a net-benefit to humanity by keeping world powers in a state of Nash-equilibrium/MAD? [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/09/Bubble-and-lines-FINAL-03.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/09/Bubble-and-lines-...
- ISL 7y ago
  Yep, sure is possible. But all it takes is one unstable leader, or the failing of governmental structures designed to promote stability, or a few flaky sensors erroneously claiming a nuclear attack, and the meta-stability of MAD can tunnel to the true potential minimum, where nobody can wage war because we're all dead. The modern world is unaware of how terrible major wars and nuclear weapons can be, because we are now generations removed from the experience. I fear that we are poised to re-learn some of those lessons. Circling back: Yep, sure is possible, but I'm not going to work on weapons systems unless we are at war. I'd rather work on the education and science needed to help everyone respect one another and lead healthier lives. I've only got one life and don't want to spend it building systems that might end others' lives more-efficiently.
- adamsea 7y ago
  I think its more about what do you want to leave behind you ....sure, a given defense technical discovery or innovation may, in the right circumstances, used by the right people, prevent suffering, but, if your goal is to help others it seems a lot more direct to be a teacher, or a doctor, etc.
- chrchang523 7y ago
  Keep in mind that the existence of lots of skilled people who are willing to contribute to serious war efforts, but who'd rather do other things most of the time, has some deterrent effect on foreign countries--there is an incentive to avoid doing something bad enough that it "wakes up the sleeping giant". I'd reserve criticism for the few people who aren't willing to help even in nightmare scenarios.
CharlesColeman 7y ago
> I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day, but won't touch a system that can kill another human unless we are at war. Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that. I don't think you can stop humans from getting better at killing each other. So the real question is: who should have the best killing systems? If the answer is "not the US," then who will it be?
- wolfram74 7y ago
  Have you ever heard of the movie "The Mouse that Roared"?
  - coding123 7y ago
    It looks like a great story. I wish movies these days were as imaginative or risky.
- ISL 7y ago
  It is essential that we find a way to stop humans from getting better at killing one another. If killing-technology advances to the point that one person can kill seven billion, we will have a major problem on our hands. What is necessary is to have sufficient distributed killing-capacity to prevent any one actor from gaining outsized power over everyone else. If people collectively agree that WMD are bad, and are willing to go to conventional war to stop everyone else from developing WMD, there may be a WMD-free equilibrium.
  - amflare 7y ago
    The issue there is that declaring conventional war on someone who is making WMD's means you losing really quickly. So you need WMD's to ensure you can stand against them. And therein lies the entire history of military development. You can't enforce anything without force. And he who has the most force has the advantage.
    - ISL 7y ago
wolco 7y ago
Government and corporations are full of compromise. Stay in a school related environment for as long as possible if your ideals are the most important aspect of your career search.
- gbear605 7y ago
  Most corporate jobs don’t involve killing people, while many jobs for physicists at defence contractors do.
  - asjw 7y ago
    Many more people die for too much sugar or cigarettes than for defense projects...
    - gbear605 7y ago
      I’d still also not work for a cigarette company or a soda drink company. Your point?
sailfast 7y ago
In bullet 1, you say that you were heartbroken to see a citation in a defense project. In bullet 2, you say that classification is the antithesis of science because projects are classified (read: not published) But in Bullet 1, somebody cited you in an unclassified paper, and also once you publish you obviously don't get to control who uses your ideas or for what purpose short of a patent. These seem mutually exclusive, but I might be misunderstanding.
- MaulingMonkey 7y ago
  > ... in an unclassified paper Or a declassified paper. (Not everything that starts behind the classification wall, stays behind the classification wall... but neither does everything behind the classification wall come forward in any reasonable timeframe.)
  - sailfast 7y ago
    True! But things do get released.
sdinsn 7y ago
Speaking of the "antithesis of science": > I was heartbroken the day I saw a citation of my work in a military application, as it was never the intent of the work Isn't a cornerstone of scientific research that you never know what fruitful unrelated applications could be created by your work? The scientific community is collaborative, multidisciplinary, etc.- you should be happy your work contributed to progress. > I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day Even though full non-proliferation will likely contribute to more war? > Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that. Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research? > unless we are at war Well, we are at war. In 2018, Congress identified 7 countries that we are officially in conflict with. And if you have a broader definition of war, the number is much higher. > Defense projects are classified, and classification is the antithesis of science. Not all defense projects are classified.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research? …no?
  - jakeogh 7y ago
    Think it through. How would you "no" that? Step 1. Obtain bigger stick.
- ISL 7y ago
  Should I be happy that someone researching weapons systems that might be pointed at me found my work useful? That's a strange definition of progress. It is far from proven that a world without nuclear weapons is necessarily a world with more war. We should not strive to get better at everything. Improving our ability to cause one another pain for its own end, for example, is cruel and inhuman. To me, the point of scientific research is a deeper understanding of Nature. Agreed that the United States is actively engaged in armed conflict, but the integrity of our nation is arguably facing greater threats from within; a difficulty we must find our way through together. Agreed that not all defense projects are classified -- that was a simplification. Many of the projects for which my skills are suited are classified. I'm perfectly happy accepting DARPA or similar funds for peaceful research.
abdullahkhalids 7y ago
You might find this thread insightful https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016 https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016

by ISL 7y ago

kube-system 7y ago

Offensive capabilities aren't linearly related with human death and suffering. It's not even clear whether the relationship is positive or negative.[0] Have you considered the possibility that your work could potentially create a net-benefit to humanity by keeping world powers in a state of Nash-equilibrium/MAD? [0]: https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/09/Bubble-and-lines-FINAL-03.png https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2018/09/Bubble-and-lines-...

ISL 7y ago
Yep, sure is possible. But all it takes is one unstable leader, or the failing of governmental structures designed to promote stability, or a few flaky sensors erroneously claiming a nuclear attack, and the meta-stability of MAD can tunnel to the true potential minimum, where nobody can wage war because we're all dead. The modern world is unaware of how terrible major wars and nuclear weapons can be, because we are now generations removed from the experience. I fear that we are poised to re-learn some of those lessons. Circling back: Yep, sure is possible, but I'm not going to work on weapons systems unless we are at war. I'd rather work on the education and science needed to help everyone respect one another and lead healthier lives. I've only got one life and don't want to spend it building systems that might end others' lives more-efficiently.
adamsea 7y ago
I think its more about what do you want to leave behind you ....sure, a given defense technical discovery or innovation may, in the right circumstances, used by the right people, prevent suffering, but, if your goal is to help others it seems a lot more direct to be a teacher, or a doctor, etc.
chrchang523 7y ago
Keep in mind that the existence of lots of skilled people who are willing to contribute to serious war efforts, but who'd rather do other things most of the time, has some deterrent effect on foreign countries--there is an incentive to avoid doing something bad enough that it "wakes up the sleeping giant". I'd reserve criticism for the few people who aren't willing to help even in nightmare scenarios.

CharlesColeman 7y ago

> I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day, but won't touch a system that can kill another human unless we are at war. Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that. I don't think you can stop humans from getting better at killing each other. So the real question is: who should have the best killing systems? If the answer is "not the US," then who will it be?

wolfram74 7y ago
Have you ever heard of the movie "The Mouse that Roared"?
- coding123 7y ago
  It looks like a great story. I wish movies these days were as imaginative or risky.
ISL 7y ago
It is essential that we find a way to stop humans from getting better at killing one another. If killing-technology advances to the point that one person can kill seven billion, we will have a major problem on our hands. What is necessary is to have sufficient distributed killing-capacity to prevent any one actor from gaining outsized power over everyone else. If people collectively agree that WMD are bad, and are willing to go to conventional war to stop everyone else from developing WMD, there may be a WMD-free equilibrium.
- amflare 7y ago
  The issue there is that declaring conventional war on someone who is making WMD's means you losing really quickly. So you need WMD's to ensure you can stand against them. And therein lies the entire history of military development. You can't enforce anything without force. And he who has the most force has the advantage.
  - ISL 7y ago

wolco 7y ago

Government and corporations are full of compromise. Stay in a school related environment for as long as possible if your ideals are the most important aspect of your career search.

gbear605 7y ago
Most corporate jobs don’t involve killing people, while many jobs for physicists at defence contractors do.
- asjw 7y ago
  Many more people die for too much sugar or cigarettes than for defense projects...
  - gbear605 7y ago
    I’d still also not work for a cigarette company or a soda drink company. Your point?

sailfast 7y ago

In bullet 1, you say that you were heartbroken to see a citation in a defense project. In bullet 2, you say that classification is the antithesis of science because projects are classified (read: not published) But in Bullet 1, somebody cited you in an unclassified paper, and also once you publish you obviously don't get to control who uses your ideas or for what purpose short of a patent. These seem mutually exclusive, but I might be misunderstanding.

MaulingMonkey 7y ago
> ... in an unclassified paper Or a declassified paper. (Not everything that starts behind the classification wall, stays behind the classification wall... but neither does everything behind the classification wall come forward in any reasonable timeframe.)
- sailfast 7y ago
  True! But things do get released.

sdinsn 7y ago

Speaking of the "antithesis of science": > I was heartbroken the day I saw a citation of my work in a military application, as it was never the intent of the work Isn't a cornerstone of scientific research that you never know what fruitful unrelated applications could be created by your work? The scientific community is collaborative, multidisciplinary, etc.- you should be happy your work contributed to progress. > I'll do nuclear non-proliferation work all day Even though full non-proliferation will likely contribute to more war? > Humans are really, really good at killing one another -- we don't need to get better at that. Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research? > unless we are at war Well, we are at war. In 2018, Congress identified 7 countries that we are officially in conflict with. And if you have a broader definition of war, the number is much higher. > Defense projects are classified, and classification is the antithesis of science. Not all defense projects are classified.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Shouldn't we ALWAYS strive to get better at everything? Isn't that the point of scientific research? …no?
- jakeogh 7y ago
  Think it through. How would you "no" that? Step 1. Obtain bigger stick.
ISL 7y ago
Should I be happy that someone researching weapons systems that might be pointed at me found my work useful? That's a strange definition of progress. It is far from proven that a world without nuclear weapons is necessarily a world with more war. We should not strive to get better at everything. Improving our ability to cause one another pain for its own end, for example, is cruel and inhuman. To me, the point of scientific research is a deeper understanding of Nature. Agreed that the United States is actively engaged in armed conflict, but the integrity of our nation is arguably facing greater threats from within; a difficulty we must find our way through together. Agreed that not all defense projects are classified -- that was a simplification. Many of the projects for which my skills are suited are classified. I'm perfectly happy accepting DARPA or similar funds for peaceful research.

abdullahkhalids 7y ago

You might find this thread insightful https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016 https://twitter.com/yonatanzunger/status/975545527973462016