4 ms·

Although very compelling, I have gradually weaned myself off from pop-military journalism such as this article. Unfortunately it seems to me, that the intersec

Although very compelling, I have gradually weaned myself off from pop-military journalism such as this article. Unfortunately it seems to me, that the intersection of people who are qualified to talk about these topics and the ones who are willing and allowed to talk about it is very small. I feel like to form a qualified opinion on these modern marvels of technology, one needs to have at least an undergraduate understanding of at least one (but preferably a multitude) of the most difficult engineering fields. Most people don't have that, and this usually results in shallow articles full of factoids that get repeated again and again.

adolph 4y ago
Especially recycled content blogspam like this article. As an alternative, here is a lengthy monologue by a former Pratt and Whitney flight engineer about the SR-71's engine, the J58. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw
giraffe_lady 4y ago
"It's morally compromising to treat large scale human-killing machinery as entertainment" is also a good reason.
- wing-_-nuts 4y ago
  I don't know about 'morally compromising' but have you ever considered just how much of our entertainment revolves around the story of killing other people? Almost every video game I own is in some way violent. The books I read and the movies I watch are often about people in conflict. This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    Yes I have considered it it is bad.
  - GekkePrutser 4y ago
    Sweden though committed to staying out of war is a major producer of fighter jets :)
  - matheusmoreira 4y ago
    Yes. We just can't avoid it apparently. War is just too powerful a concept. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisCoolThing https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisC...
- zibby8 4y ago
  What’s the argument that being entertained by weaponry is morally comprised? The only argument I can think of would be reliant on a belief that human killing is always morally wrong. I’m not sure many people share that belief. But would love to hear an alternative perspective.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    They aren't abstractly used to murder hypothetical people. Real humans have had their lives and families and entire countries destroyed by us, using these machines. We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
    - catiopatio 4y ago
      I’m pretty certain your hypothetical victims here would hate us for destroying their country and/or killing their family, not for “taking delight in the implements of destruction.”
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Yeah we should probably stop that too.
    - zibby8 4y ago
      But there are other cases where peoples’ lives were saved by such machines. E.g. billions of dollars in weaponry has been supplied to Ukraine to defend the country from invasion. Was that immoral too?
      - giraffe_lady 4y ago
        Right now I'm not actually arguing against militaries existing or anyone making or controlling military equipment. It's consistent to consider them a gruesome and shameful necessity, rather than to take joy in their prowess and ingenuity which is a bit the norm in the US.
- quesera 4y ago
  We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn. We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out. As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
  - giraffe_lady 4y ago
    > We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn. Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself. > and we'd all be poorer without them. You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
    - quesera 4y ago
      I agree that it is not simple, and that the worst consequences are awful. But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!). These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot. But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life. The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think. (We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!) But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Can't we all just appreciate how beautiful these aircrafts are? They almost look too good to be real. Like something out of science fiction or an Ace Combat video game. It must feel amazing to maneuver one of these things in the air...

adolph 4y ago

Especially recycled content blogspam like this article. As an alternative, here is a lengthy monologue by a former Pratt and Whitney flight engineer about the SR-71's engine, the J58. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MJrXUh0eZjw

giraffe_lady 4y ago

"It's morally compromising to treat large scale human-killing machinery as entertainment" is also a good reason.

wing-_-nuts 4y ago
I don't know about 'morally compromising' but have you ever considered just how much of our entertainment revolves around the story of killing other people? Almost every video game I own is in some way violent. The books I read and the movies I watch are often about people in conflict. This persists even with people from 'neutral' countries who are explicitly committed to staying out of war (japan, sweden, etc). I don't really judge it, because this is the water we swim in as humanity, but an alien visiting us would conclude we're a very murderous and warlike species.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  Yes I have considered it it is bad.
- GekkePrutser 4y ago
  Sweden though committed to staying out of war is a major producer of fighter jets :)
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  Yes. We just can't avoid it apparently. War is just too powerful a concept. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisCoolThing https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Analysis/DoNotDoThisC...
zibby8 4y ago
What’s the argument that being entertained by weaponry is morally comprised? The only argument I can think of would be reliant on a belief that human killing is always morally wrong. I’m not sure many people share that belief. But would love to hear an alternative perspective.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  They aren't abstractly used to murder hypothetical people. Real humans have had their lives and families and entire countries destroyed by us, using these machines. We can say we didn't do that, we individually have very little control over who our government kills and how. But as long as we take delight in the implements of that destruction they are right to hate us.
  - catiopatio 4y ago
    I’m pretty certain your hypothetical victims here would hate us for destroying their country and/or killing their family, not for “taking delight in the implements of destruction.”
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Yeah we should probably stop that too.
  - zibby8 4y ago
    But there are other cases where peoples’ lives were saved by such machines. E.g. billions of dollars in weaponry has been supplied to Ukraine to defend the country from invasion. Was that immoral too?
    - giraffe_lady 4y ago
      Right now I'm not actually arguing against militaries existing or anyone making or controlling military equipment. It's consistent to consider them a gruesome and shameful necessity, rather than to take joy in their prowess and ingenuity which is a bit the norm in the US.
quesera 4y ago
We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn. We can't do much about the fact that intraglobal resource competitions have made it necessary to play the game. There is no opting out. As a consequence, the money and science that is poured into space and military is immense. The products of those energies are technologically interesting, and we'd all be poorer without them.
- giraffe_lady 4y ago
  > We're here for the technology, not for the murder-porn. Morally impoverished to pretend you can separate them in this way. You're here for the technology despite the murder-porn, so have the spine to stand up and admit that about yourself. > and we'd all be poorer without them. You can literally spin up youtube and find videos of children being killed by these tools. Do that, watch a couple. Watch children die, you owe them that at least if you're going to find value and entertainment in these weapons. Would they be poorer? their families? Be honest about whose lives are enriched by these tools and whose aren't, please. You and I might be poorer without them, sure, but that's not a "we all" that I can understand.
  - quesera 4y ago
    I agree that it is not simple, and that the worst consequences are awful. But unfortunately, opting out is not an option, no matter how distasteful parts of it are. If we don't have competitive or superior tools, we become victimized by those that do. For any definition of "we", where there is not enough social cohesion and control to prevent bad actors (e.g. most obviously: global politics!). These tools are sometimes used carelessly. Some of that is inevitable, some of it is lack of accountability, some of it is malice. Some of it we can improve on, but some we cannot. But also, military research is responsible for huge good parts of our lives. Our survival as a (country, yes, but also) species might depend on it. But it's a mixed bag. This mirrors the complexity of life. The ideal is to have the best tools of competition imaginable, and to never need to use them. We can agree on this at least, I think. (We can also agree that they are sometimes used unnecessarily!) But the privilege of never needing to use them comes with the burden of constantly improving them. Fortunately, there are often great benefits to the research even if it's never used for the purpose intended by the party who paid for it.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
Can't we all just appreciate how beautiful these aircrafts are? They almost look too good to be real. Like something out of science fiction or an Ace Combat video game. It must feel amazing to maneuver one of these things in the air...