3 ms·

> Is there such a thing as a purely-defensive technology? I think that most medical technologies, at the least, can be considered purely defensive. Ie, a mobil

> Is there such a thing as a purely-defensive technology? I think that most medical technologies, at the least, can be considered purely defensive. Ie, a mobile defibrillator or penecillin. Then again, inventions like spray-on bandages increase the effectiveness of an army, which would aid in offensives. But I think the inventor of any such spray-on bandage would agree that the benefits to humanity outweigh the fact that armies can march a little longer with the invention. So I think there's probably a large class of inventions that have humanitarian uses that "outweigh" the military ones from a general conscious perspective. Spray-on banadages, canned food (which may have allowed Napolean to conduct more and greater expeditions than he would otherwise), etc. Aside, there have been many purely war-motivated or wartime-motivated inventions that have gone on to aid the public at large. (See for instance the history of the tampon, or the history of canned food).

Groxx 15y ago
Spray-on bandages rely on aerosoling a drying, congealing liquid which hardens quickly. I fail to see how that core tech can't be slightly adapted to do something harmful. Penicillin isn't really an invention, nor is it a technology, but we are capable of biological warfare because we know about cellular structures and resistances. Mobile defibrillators are essentially tasers without a propellant and barbs. --- There are definitely cases where I'd argue something made for war has done more good than harm. Lots of them, even. But I didn't invent those things - how does the inventor feel about it all? If your accounting software turned out to have a unique algorithm that made it easier to keep ammo supplies available on a battlefield, resulting in a few thousand more deaths, how would you feel about it? What if it were tens of thousands? More?

Groxx 15y ago

Spray-on bandages rely on aerosoling a drying, congealing liquid which hardens quickly. I fail to see how that core tech can't be slightly adapted to do something harmful. Penicillin isn't really an invention, nor is it a technology, but we are capable of biological warfare because we know about cellular structures and resistances. Mobile defibrillators are essentially tasers without a propellant and barbs. --- There are definitely cases where I'd argue something made for war has done more good than harm. Lots of them, even. But I didn't invent those things - how does the inventor feel about it all? If your accounting software turned out to have a unique algorithm that made it easier to keep ammo supplies available on a battlefield, resulting in a few thousand more deaths, how would you feel about it? What if it were tens of thousands? More?