5 ms·

Still, the problem with having occupation-style technology and drones is that it further spreads the power of those with capital at the expense of those without

Still, the problem with having occupation-style technology and drones is that it further spreads the power of those with capital at the expense of those without. The current class setup prevents truly depraved and evil systemic evil (beyond a point) from occurring, because officers and soldiers are human and will blatantly refuse to do things that are Evil (perpetually). There is no such guarantee with drones--in fact, to refuse orders is a design flaw. I can't help but imagine some descendant of these things, in the mode of one of Bradbury's mechanical dogs, attacks a throng of protestors.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
I do not disagree, my hope is that, as with other technologies, especially dual use ones, we will be able to keep them biased toward the positive uses. Robotics, like genetic engineering, nano-technology, and data mining can do good things and bad things. It is important to focus on the good things, remain cognizant of the bad things, and maximize the value. I would be sad to see robotic quadrapeds "banned for civilian use" because they can be weaponized, because they can also get to people in need in dangerous and hard to reach places. In a more current events sort of way, I am in favor of severe punishments for people who weaponize drones and fly them in public places, or people who manufacture and sell such drones, but I am not in favor of banning personal ownership of drones. I am willing to risk that someone will show up where I am with such a device, and the risks to my personal safety if they employ it in a deadly way, in exchange for the freedom to own and experiment with drones in a responsible way.
- ethbro 12y ago
  > Robotics, like genetic engineering, nano-technology, and data mining can do good things and bad things. How's that going with arguably the most advanced and widely available of those (data mining)? To expand: I'd offer that capital tends towards amorality. Why? Because amorality is more profitable.
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    I don't buy that argument. Criminal capital (if such a term exists, which would be defined as capital that is amoral in origin) tends toward profit over morality. To the extent that technology is exploitable with a small amount of capital[1] the likelyhood of it being so exploited increases. We've seen drug lords building submarines to transport drugs up the coast, but the economic cost of really effective submarines is still too high relative to the profit such devices provide. And perhaps more importantly the economic risk of 'losing' a submarine such that its life time value exceeds its cost to build and deploy. Things like DNA printers worry me for example much more than robot dogs. [1] The same cost reductions that make fielding a web server $5/month enable large scale data mining for very little investment in cash.
  - samatman 12y ago
    Both parent comment and Chuck's reply appear to contain an important semantic error, using amoral to mean immoral. Corporations tend towards amorality, which is a superset of both morality and immorality, because this is more profitable. I believe Chuck is hoping we can keep morality more profitable, on the whole, than immorality. I am less sanguine.
    - ethbro 12y ago
      Fwiw, I specifically used amoral. I don't consider most things capital does to be immoral. In an optimally run profit-generating business, the course that produces the most profit will be pursued. That's basically a tautology, and cares nothing about morality at all!
- markdown 12y ago
  > we will be able to keep them biased toward the positive uses. Iron Man II (2010). How you intend to use them is irrelevant if all it takes is one guy on the dev team (or a compromised janitor) can take control of the entire army by dropping in some code.
  - BrainInAJar 12y ago
    I'm less worried about a rogue staffer than I am about the systemic use by large corporations to further their interests (it wasn't that long ago before corporate-employed thugs were breaking the heads of strikers.)
icehawk219 12y ago
In my mind this sentiment can be summed up as: "The more humane we make war, the more of it we'll have". And the simple reason is ... why not? When _we_ no longer suffer casualties why should we care about sending a pack of mechanical dogs into a village somewere and just let them run wild without a care in the world for the casualties we cause to the innocent? And before saying that that won't happen just look at current drone warfare. There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. It seems foolish to think these will be any different.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Except that this statement: There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. is demonstrably false. I presume you were employing hyperbole but it is important to note the difference between waging war in Afghanistan using drones versus waging war in Iraq using cluster bombs. The latter case has a much higher non-combatant casualty rate. Further, the more accurate such munitions become the easier it is for non-combatants to avoid areas where they are likely to be killed or injured. I have yet to meet anyone in the US military who considers warfare "humane", and while I would not be surprised if such people existed, it has not been my experience that they are in positions of authority.
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. I care. As do tens to hundreds of millions of other US citizens. Tell me, what we were supposed to do about it again (that we didn't do)?
  - jdietrich 12y ago
    March on Washington. Picket the manufacturers. Organise a boycott of related companies. Chain yourself to the gates of drone control bases. Something, anything. There is no mass movement against drones. Look at protests against nuclear weapons during the cold war. Large, well-organised groups led a groundswell of opposition. The Greenham Common peace camp was continually occupied for eighteen years until the nuclear weapons based there were removed; The Faslane peace camp is still occupied today. In 1982, a million people gathered in New York to oppose nuclear weapons. You care, as do millions of Americans, but only to the extent that you don't actually have to do anything.
Kalium 12y ago
I submit that the purpose and function of any/all forms of technology is to enhance the abilities of those with it and not those without. This is not a feature of any given flavor of technology, but rather of technology in general. In any kind of competitive context, this will implicitly elevate those with technology over those without. Generally. Absent a Arthur C Clarke "Superiority" sort of situation.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Radio collars for endangered species?
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Used to extend the power of people tracking them, usually to the detriment of people who want to do something with that land.
astine 12y ago
Still, the problem with having occupation-style technology and drones is that it further spreads the power of those with capital at the expense of those without. Are we certain that this is a bad thing. I personally like that it requires the resources of a nation-state to field a major military. The whole 'democratization of war' that happened during the twentieth century is arguably the reason why we see constant, brutal, civil war certain parts of the world. If we could undo the invention of the Kalashnikov the world would be so much better.
- darkmighty 12y ago
  The point stands that as you diminish the number of people needed to make aggressive decisions those scenarios can become more unstable / risky (as in risk of unethical orders). It's the same case as with nuclear weapons. But it's not an insurmountable problem: simply delegating the decision to more and/or better prepared individuals is the way to go. The dangers and benefits in fact are strikingly analogous to nuclear weapons technology: the power will eventually overwhelm conventional warfare and major nations would probably only fight proxy wars up with robots, and stop immediately when the robotic resources depleted to prevent assured destruction. It could create the sort of calm that nuclear weapons bring. And precautions must be assigned the same way (multi-person authorization, strict safety, etc).
- soperj 12y ago
  If these existed in the late 1700s, no way that US colonists can declare independence.
- BatFastard 12y ago
  What Kalashnikov designed was powered by inevitability. If he hadn't done it someone else would. Just like with the robots, someone somewhere WILL make them. I do fear the ability that these give leaders to wage war with no cost other then money.

ChuckMcM 12y ago

I do not disagree, my hope is that, as with other technologies, especially dual use ones, we will be able to keep them biased toward the positive uses. Robotics, like genetic engineering, nano-technology, and data mining can do good things and bad things. It is important to focus on the good things, remain cognizant of the bad things, and maximize the value. I would be sad to see robotic quadrapeds "banned for civilian use" because they can be weaponized, because they can also get to people in need in dangerous and hard to reach places. In a more current events sort of way, I am in favor of severe punishments for people who weaponize drones and fly them in public places, or people who manufacture and sell such drones, but I am not in favor of banning personal ownership of drones. I am willing to risk that someone will show up where I am with such a device, and the risks to my personal safety if they employ it in a deadly way, in exchange for the freedom to own and experiment with drones in a responsible way.

ethbro 12y ago
> Robotics, like genetic engineering, nano-technology, and data mining can do good things and bad things. How's that going with arguably the most advanced and widely available of those (data mining)? To expand: I'd offer that capital tends towards amorality. Why? Because amorality is more profitable.
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  I don't buy that argument. Criminal capital (if such a term exists, which would be defined as capital that is amoral in origin) tends toward profit over morality. To the extent that technology is exploitable with a small amount of capital[1] the likelyhood of it being so exploited increases. We've seen drug lords building submarines to transport drugs up the coast, but the economic cost of really effective submarines is still too high relative to the profit such devices provide. And perhaps more importantly the economic risk of 'losing' a submarine such that its life time value exceeds its cost to build and deploy. Things like DNA printers worry me for example much more than robot dogs. [1] The same cost reductions that make fielding a web server $5/month enable large scale data mining for very little investment in cash.
- samatman 12y ago
  Both parent comment and Chuck's reply appear to contain an important semantic error, using amoral to mean immoral. Corporations tend towards amorality, which is a superset of both morality and immorality, because this is more profitable. I believe Chuck is hoping we can keep morality more profitable, on the whole, than immorality. I am less sanguine.
  - ethbro 12y ago
    Fwiw, I specifically used amoral. I don't consider most things capital does to be immoral. In an optimally run profit-generating business, the course that produces the most profit will be pursued. That's basically a tautology, and cares nothing about morality at all!
markdown 12y ago
> we will be able to keep them biased toward the positive uses. Iron Man II (2010). How you intend to use them is irrelevant if all it takes is one guy on the dev team (or a compromised janitor) can take control of the entire army by dropping in some code.
- BrainInAJar 12y ago
  I'm less worried about a rogue staffer than I am about the systemic use by large corporations to further their interests (it wasn't that long ago before corporate-employed thugs were breaking the heads of strikers.)

icehawk219 12y ago

In my mind this sentiment can be summed up as: "The more humane we make war, the more of it we'll have". And the simple reason is ... why not? When _we_ no longer suffer casualties why should we care about sending a pack of mechanical dogs into a village somewere and just let them run wild without a care in the world for the casualties we cause to the innocent? And before saying that that won't happen just look at current drone warfare. There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. It seems foolish to think these will be any different.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Except that this statement: There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. is demonstrably false. I presume you were employing hyperbole but it is important to note the difference between waging war in Afghanistan using drones versus waging war in Iraq using cluster bombs. The latter case has a much higher non-combatant casualty rate. Further, the more accurate such munitions become the easier it is for non-combatants to avoid areas where they are likely to be killed or injured. I have yet to meet anyone in the US military who considers warfare "humane", and while I would not be surprised if such people existed, it has not been my experience that they are in positions of authority.
jjoonathan 12y ago
> There isn't a person in this country (US) who truly cares about all the collateral damage of our drones. I care. As do tens to hundreds of millions of other US citizens. Tell me, what we were supposed to do about it again (that we didn't do)?
- jdietrich 12y ago
  March on Washington. Picket the manufacturers. Organise a boycott of related companies. Chain yourself to the gates of drone control bases. Something, anything. There is no mass movement against drones. Look at protests against nuclear weapons during the cold war. Large, well-organised groups led a groundswell of opposition. The Greenham Common peace camp was continually occupied for eighteen years until the nuclear weapons based there were removed; The Faslane peace camp is still occupied today. In 1982, a million people gathered in New York to oppose nuclear weapons. You care, as do millions of Americans, but only to the extent that you don't actually have to do anything.

Kalium 12y ago

I submit that the purpose and function of any/all forms of technology is to enhance the abilities of those with it and not those without. This is not a feature of any given flavor of technology, but rather of technology in general. In any kind of competitive context, this will implicitly elevate those with technology over those without. Generally. Absent a Arthur C Clarke "Superiority" sort of situation.

ChuckMcM 12y ago
Radio collars for endangered species?
- Kalium 12y ago
  Used to extend the power of people tracking them, usually to the detriment of people who want to do something with that land.

astine 12y ago

Still, the problem with having occupation-style technology and drones is that it further spreads the power of those with capital at the expense of those without. Are we certain that this is a bad thing. I personally like that it requires the resources of a nation-state to field a major military. The whole 'democratization of war' that happened during the twentieth century is arguably the reason why we see constant, brutal, civil war certain parts of the world. If we could undo the invention of the Kalashnikov the world would be so much better.

darkmighty 12y ago
The point stands that as you diminish the number of people needed to make aggressive decisions those scenarios can become more unstable / risky (as in risk of unethical orders). It's the same case as with nuclear weapons. But it's not an insurmountable problem: simply delegating the decision to more and/or better prepared individuals is the way to go. The dangers and benefits in fact are strikingly analogous to nuclear weapons technology: the power will eventually overwhelm conventional warfare and major nations would probably only fight proxy wars up with robots, and stop immediately when the robotic resources depleted to prevent assured destruction. It could create the sort of calm that nuclear weapons bring. And precautions must be assigned the same way (multi-person authorization, strict safety, etc).
soperj 12y ago
If these existed in the late 1700s, no way that US colonists can declare independence.
BatFastard 12y ago
What Kalashnikov designed was powered by inevitability. If he hadn't done it someone else would. Just like with the robots, someone somewhere WILL make them. I do fear the ability that these give leaders to wage war with no cost other then money.