5 ms·

Costa Rica hasn’t had a standing military since 1948. They are in one of the most politically unstable parts of the world and do just fine without worry of inv

Costa Rica hasn’t had a standing military since 1948. They are in one of the most politically unstable parts of the world and do just fine without worry of invasion. The US hasn’t been attacked militarily on its own soil in the modern era. The US military monopoly hasn’t prevented horrific attacks such as 9/11 executed by groups claiming to be motivated by our foreign military campaigns. I think there is a valid question about the moral culpability of working in this area.

dahart 7y ago
Of course there is a valid question about the morals of war technology. You are absolutely right about that, and I am not even remotely suggesting otherwise. Like I said, I don’t think I would ever choose to work on it. There’s a vast chasm in between right and wrong though. There can be understanding of others’ perspectives, regardless of my personal judgement. And there is also a valid question and tightly related question here about the morals of mitigating damage during a military conflict, especially if the mitigation prevents innocent deaths. If there’s a hard moral line between doctors and cooks and drivers and snipers and drone programmers, I don’t know exactly where it lies. Doctors are generally considered morally good, even war doctors, but if we are at war, it’s certainly better to prevent an injury than to treat one. The best goal in my opinion is no war.
3pt14159 7y ago
It's a valid question, but realistically if Costa Rica were invaded a number of countries would step in to help them. I love Costa Rica, it's one of the most beautiful countries I've been to and I do appreciate the political statement their making, but at the same time they're in a pretty unique situation. As for the ethics of working on weapons, I think there is a lot of grey when it comes to software. It tends to centralize wealth, since once you get it right it works for everyone. It tends to be dual use, because a hardened OS can be used for both banks and tanks. Even developments in AI are worrying because they're so clearly applicable to the military. Would I work on a nuclear bomb? No. Would I work on software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian? Maybe. It's not an all or nothing thing.
- kragen 7y ago
  In the last 40 years, Panama and Grenada were invaded, Honduras had a coup, Colombia had a civil war, Venezuela is currently having a sort of civil war, Nicaragua's government was overthrown by a foreign-armed terrorist campaign, and El Salvador's government sent death squads out to kill its subjects. Nobody stepped in to help any of them except Colombia. Why would Costa Rica be different? > Would I work on software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian? The logical extreme of this is Death Note: the person who has the power simply chooses who should die, and that person dies, immediately and with no opportunity for resistance and no evidence of who killed them. Is that your ideal world? Who do you want to have that power — to define who plays the role of an “innocent civilian” in your sketch — and what do you do if they lose control of it? What do you do if the person or bureaucracy to which you have given such omnipotence turns out not to be incorruptible and perfectly loving? I suggest watching Slaughterbots: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA
  - dahart 7y ago
    > The logical extreme of this [...] Is that your ideal world? Clearly not. Would you please not post an extreme straw-man and turn this into polarizing ideological judgement? The post you’re responding to very clearly agreed that war is morally questionable, and very clearly argued for middle ground or better, not going to some extreme. You don’t have to agree with war or endorse any kind of killing in any way to see that some of the activities involved by some of the people are trying to prevent damage rather than cause it. Intentionally choosing not to acknowledge the nuance in someone’s point of view is ironic in this discussion, because that’s one of the ways that wars start.
    - kragen 7y ago
      You assert that "software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian" is "middle ground", "not going to some extreme", "trying to prevent damage", and "nuanced". It is none of those. It is a non-nuanced extreme that is going to cause damage and kill those of us in the middle ground. Reducing it to a comic book is a way to cut through the confusion and demonstrate that. If you have a reason (that reasonable people will accept) to think that the comic-book scenario is undesirable, you will find that that reason also applies to the facial-recognition-missiles case — perhaps more weakly, perhaps more strongly, but certainly well enough to make it clear that amplifying the humans' power of violence in that way is not going to prevent damage. Moreover, it is absurd that someone is proposing to build Slaughterbots and you are accusing me of "turn[ing] this into polarizing ideological judgement" because I presented the commonsense, obvious arguments against that course of action.
prostheticvamp 7y ago
The US was last attacked in living memory; Pearl Harbor survivors still number > 0. I will leave the WTC attack on the table, as I’m not interested in a nitpicking tangent about what constitutes an attack in asymmetric warfare vs. “terrorism.” “The modern era” is usefully vague enough to be unfalsifiable.
samatman 7y ago
In practice, Costa Rica has a standing military. It's just the US military. Due to the Monroe Doctrine, this is a rational stance for Costa Rica to take. If the US were to adopt this policy, Costa Rica might have to take a hard look at repealing it.

dahart 7y ago

Of course there is a valid question about the morals of war technology. You are absolutely right about that, and I am not even remotely suggesting otherwise. Like I said, I don’t think I would ever choose to work on it. There’s a vast chasm in between right and wrong though. There can be understanding of others’ perspectives, regardless of my personal judgement. And there is also a valid question and tightly related question here about the morals of mitigating damage during a military conflict, especially if the mitigation prevents innocent deaths. If there’s a hard moral line between doctors and cooks and drivers and snipers and drone programmers, I don’t know exactly where it lies. Doctors are generally considered morally good, even war doctors, but if we are at war, it’s certainly better to prevent an injury than to treat one. The best goal in my opinion is no war.

3pt14159 7y ago

It's a valid question, but realistically if Costa Rica were invaded a number of countries would step in to help them. I love Costa Rica, it's one of the most beautiful countries I've been to and I do appreciate the political statement their making, but at the same time they're in a pretty unique situation. As for the ethics of working on weapons, I think there is a lot of grey when it comes to software. It tends to centralize wealth, since once you get it right it works for everyone. It tends to be dual use, because a hardened OS can be used for both banks and tanks. Even developments in AI are worrying because they're so clearly applicable to the military. Would I work on a nuclear bomb? No. Would I work on software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian? Maybe. It's not an all or nothing thing.

kragen 7y ago
In the last 40 years, Panama and Grenada were invaded, Honduras had a coup, Colombia had a civil war, Venezuela is currently having a sort of civil war, Nicaragua's government was overthrown by a foreign-armed terrorist campaign, and El Salvador's government sent death squads out to kill its subjects. Nobody stepped in to help any of them except Colombia. Why would Costa Rica be different? > Would I work on software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian? The logical extreme of this is Death Note: the person who has the power simply chooses who should die, and that person dies, immediately and with no opportunity for resistance and no evidence of who killed them. Is that your ideal world? Who do you want to have that power — to define who plays the role of an “innocent civilian” in your sketch — and what do you do if they lose control of it? What do you do if the person or bureaucracy to which you have given such omnipotence turns out not to be incorruptible and perfectly loving? I suggest watching Slaughterbots: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9CO6M2HsoIA
- dahart 7y ago
  > The logical extreme of this [...] Is that your ideal world? Clearly not. Would you please not post an extreme straw-man and turn this into polarizing ideological judgement? The post you’re responding to very clearly agreed that war is morally questionable, and very clearly argued for middle ground or better, not going to some extreme. You don’t have to agree with war or endorse any kind of killing in any way to see that some of the activities involved by some of the people are trying to prevent damage rather than cause it. Intentionally choosing not to acknowledge the nuance in someone’s point of view is ironic in this discussion, because that’s one of the ways that wars start.
  - kragen 7y ago
    You assert that "software that does a better job of, say, facial recognition to lessen the likelihood of a predator drone killing an innocent civilian" is "middle ground", "not going to some extreme", "trying to prevent damage", and "nuanced". It is none of those. It is a non-nuanced extreme that is going to cause damage and kill those of us in the middle ground. Reducing it to a comic book is a way to cut through the confusion and demonstrate that. If you have a reason (that reasonable people will accept) to think that the comic-book scenario is undesirable, you will find that that reason also applies to the facial-recognition-missiles case — perhaps more weakly, perhaps more strongly, but certainly well enough to make it clear that amplifying the humans' power of violence in that way is not going to prevent damage. Moreover, it is absurd that someone is proposing to build Slaughterbots and you are accusing me of "turn[ing] this into polarizing ideological judgement" because I presented the commonsense, obvious arguments against that course of action.

prostheticvamp 7y ago

The US was last attacked in living memory; Pearl Harbor survivors still number > 0. I will leave the WTC attack on the table, as I’m not interested in a nitpicking tangent about what constitutes an attack in asymmetric warfare vs. “terrorism.” “The modern era” is usefully vague enough to be unfalsifiable.

samatman 7y ago

In practice, Costa Rica has a standing military. It's just the US military. Due to the Monroe Doctrine, this is a rational stance for Costa Rica to take. If the US were to adopt this policy, Costa Rica might have to take a hard look at repealing it.