10 ms·
If they cannot fulfill their mission one way or another (because it isn't resolvable in the structure) than dissolution isn't a bad option, I'd say.
by RandomLensman 3y ago
If they cannot fulfill their mission one way or another (because it isn't resolvable in the structure) than dissolution isn't a bad option, I'd say.
- chatmasta 3y agoThat's certainly a purist way of looking at it, and I don't disagree that it's the most aligned with their charter. But it also seems practically ineffective, even - no, especially - when considered within the context of that charter. Because by shutting it down (or sabotaging it), they're not just making a decision about their own technology; they're also yielding control of it to groups that are not beholden to the same constraints.
- RandomLensman 3y agoGiven that their control over the technology at large is limited anyway, they are already (somewhat?) ineffective, I would think. Not sure what a really good and attainable position for them would like be in that respect.
- chatmasta 3y agoYeah, agreed. But that's also why I feel the whole moral sanctimony is a pointless pursuit in the first place. The tech is coming, from somewhere, whether you like it or not. Never in history has a technological revolution been stopped.