Here is an ethical question about the use of our computer technology. Every day, I see it being used to destroy lives in wars. The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Do we have some responsibility in the way we create and distribute our computer products to others? Sales is an issue, but what about innocent lives getting trashed at the blink of an eye because some companies developped computer tools to develop the most advanced killing machine? Should the computer industry be more responsible as to how its technology get used?
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations strongm on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
Should computer technology be used to kill people? 15
- Thread starter arlems
- Start date
The day strong, cheap EMP nades will be invented with be the day that all the tech that's being put into stuff is gonna suddenly lose it's general appeal, especially for the military.
What use is having soldiers with computerised aiming, closed electronic GPS helmets and stuff when a simple EMP nade will suddenly make em all blind and shooting all over the place?
_____________________________
when someone asks for your username and password, and much *clickely clickely* is happening in the background, know enough that you should be worried.
What use is having soldiers with computerised aiming, closed electronic GPS helmets and stuff when a simple EMP nade will suddenly make em all blind and shooting all over the place?
_____________________________
when someone asks for your username and password, and much *clickely clickely* is happening in the background, know enough that you should be worried.
Well, if you are going to kill somebody, doesn't it make sense to use the most efficient device, with the least collateral damage.
I'm against war. But when it is forced on me I would prefer using the best way to end it with the fewest innocent people involved.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
I'm against war. But when it is forced on me I would prefer using the best way to end it with the fewest innocent people involved.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
-
1
- #4
collateral damage
An interesting term, what it actually means is innocent people killed or maimed...
Once invented /developed technology will be used for good or evil - you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Don't subvert the language to make the "evil" acceptable.
An interesting term, what it actually means is innocent people killed or maimed...
Once invented /developed technology will be used for good or evil - you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
Don't subvert the language to make the "evil" acceptable.
Even an obsolete computer can kill, the older the better, they are heavier.
Drop them on someone from a few stores high, and it will have a devastating effect!
Seriously now, technology or not, it is NOT the applications nor the computer that can kill, but the one in front of the keyboard guiding some destruction device.
Innocent lives get lost every single day, most of them without ANY computer involved!
Drop them on someone from a few stores high, and it will have a devastating effect!
Seriously now, technology or not, it is NOT the applications nor the computer that can kill, but the one in front of the keyboard guiding some destruction device.
Innocent lives get lost every single day, most of them without ANY computer involved!
-
4
- #6
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Collateral damage is not limited to non-targeted persons killed or harmed in military actions. It also refers to property damage to properties not the focus of the action. I find it interesting that collateral damage didn't even become a manageable "issue" until we had precision capable weapons technology. Prior to that, it was accepted as one of the horrors of war. Today, because of the precision, collateral damage is less than it has ever been, and yet, that's what the those on the outside focus their attention on.
I don't thing that anyone is subverting the language, nor is there being any attempt to justify inappropriate or evil uses of technology.
The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Think you can sell that to the Jews in the 1940's. Ask the people of London about collateral damage during the WWII bomb runs over their city, with those high-tech bombs. How many people do you think perished on the front lines in one week in 1917? I'll give you a clue, it's less than the combined death tolls from both sides of both gulf wars.
The computer technology that has been embedded into weapons system has indeed improved the accuracy and the effectiveness of those weapons systems, and the result has been less use because of increased focus. There is nothing evil in that.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I don't thing that anyone is subverting the language, nor is there being any attempt to justify inappropriate or evil uses of technology.
The highest level of technology always seems to serve to kill the most possible people at a time. Think you can sell that to the Jews in the 1940's. Ask the people of London about collateral damage during the WWII bomb runs over their city, with those high-tech bombs. How many people do you think perished on the front lines in one week in 1917? I'll give you a clue, it's less than the combined death tolls from both sides of both gulf wars.
The computer technology that has been embedded into weapons system has indeed improved the accuracy and the effectiveness of those weapons systems, and the result has been less use because of increased focus. There is nothing evil in that.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion,
World War I may not have done all that much killing in one week, but if you look at your history books you'll see that everyone describes Verdun as a horrifying experience. It came to a point where soldiers on both sides were being shot for deserting. How does that compare to the glory trip that Gulf War I was, with its flying heroes bombing the hell out of Irak almost without a scratch ? How does that compare to the relative and stunning ease with which Baghdad was taken this time in less than a month ?
As for increased focus, I agree that precision has been implemented largely due to computing enhancements. That is how we got all those nuclear warheads on missiles capable of travelling thousands of miles in mere minutes, and impacting less than 100 yards away from the target point.
Yes, the precision of the weapon is commendable, but the very large swath of destruction that would have followed hardly qualifies that precision as saintly in my eyes.
The fact that there has been less use has nothing to do with increased focus. It has everything to do with the utter horror of the results of nuclear weapon use. It is the evil of the weapon that prevented its use, not its precision.
Pascal.
World War I may not have done all that much killing in one week, but if you look at your history books you'll see that everyone describes Verdun as a horrifying experience. It came to a point where soldiers on both sides were being shot for deserting. How does that compare to the glory trip that Gulf War I was, with its flying heroes bombing the hell out of Irak almost without a scratch ? How does that compare to the relative and stunning ease with which Baghdad was taken this time in less than a month ?
As for increased focus, I agree that precision has been implemented largely due to computing enhancements. That is how we got all those nuclear warheads on missiles capable of travelling thousands of miles in mere minutes, and impacting less than 100 yards away from the target point.
Yes, the precision of the weapon is commendable, but the very large swath of destruction that would have followed hardly qualifies that precision as saintly in my eyes.
The fact that there has been less use has nothing to do with increased focus. It has everything to do with the utter horror of the results of nuclear weapon use. It is the evil of the weapon that prevented its use, not its precision.
Pascal.
Some guy said, at some point, somewhere: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".
Isn't this the same across the board for everything? The jeeps that drive them to the battlefield, the computers that run their equations, to the clothing the soldiers wear.
Most things can have nasty applications and there isn't anything you can do about it. Would you really want to anyhow? If war is going to happen you surely want it as clean, quick and efficient as possible.
Isn't this the same across the board for everything? The jeeps that drive them to the battlefield, the computers that run their equations, to the clothing the soldiers wear.
Most things can have nasty applications and there isn't anything you can do about it. Would you really want to anyhow? If war is going to happen you surely want it as clean, quick and efficient as possible.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
First of all, pmonett, I don't think anyone was talking about nuclear weapons, because by today's standards, they really quite lo-tech, and I don't know what use you're talking about, because to my knowledge, no nuclear weapon has been used either before or since the two that ended WWII. But even in the case of nuclear weapons, first realize that the cold war, during which the nuclear profileration took place, had no where near the computing power that we have today. And it was in fact, the increased precision, due the technology of the guidance systems that we did have, pre-GPS in fact, that allowed for both smaller and safer warheads. I am not an advocate by any means of nuclear weapons, but facts are facts. At peak times, the US had about half the number of warheads as the USSR, with an average yield of almost a full order of magnitute SMALLER than those of the the USSR. Why? Because the substantial increase in accuracy meant you needed less and smaller for the same effect. Against a hardened target, 100 yards is a long way, that's why the USSR built 100 Megaton warheads because that's what was needed to take out a hardended military target from a distance of 100 yards. To my knowledge, the U, had nothing larger then 20 megatons (1/5 the size), primarily because our guidance systems allowed us to measure distances in intervals considerable smaller than the yard. That's a much smaller swath of destruction. Thank God, that premise was never put to the test, and here's to hopes that it never will.
All war is a horrifying experience pmonett. As a Vietnam veteran, I've seen, up close and personal, those horrifying effects, and I can tell you first hand, that nothing has done more to safeguard the lives of our soldiers, and to substantially reduce collateral damage and protect non-combatants, than the technological advancements in weapons technology. In fact, when collateral damage makes the headlines, it's most likely because of a technological failure.
War is ugly and should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes you have to stand up and defend yourself, and when that time comes, I'm thankful for all the technology that at our disposal.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
All war is a horrifying experience pmonett. As a Vietnam veteran, I've seen, up close and personal, those horrifying effects, and I can tell you first hand, that nothing has done more to safeguard the lives of our soldiers, and to substantially reduce collateral damage and protect non-combatants, than the technological advancements in weapons technology. In fact, when collateral damage makes the headlines, it's most likely because of a technological failure.
War is ugly and should be avoided whenever possible, but sometimes you have to stand up and defend yourself, and when that time comes, I'm thankful for all the technology that at our disposal.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
-
2
- #10
I can see that there are ethical issues involved in creating weapons. As a buddhist, I have a responsibility to not harm others. Therefore I don't create weapons systems with my computer skills.
However, the world being what it is, until all beings adopt a philosophy that it is wrong to harm others, there will always be people willing to create harm whether through technology or otherwise. But all you can do as one person is take care of your own actions. We are not all responsible or in control of the actions of others. So if you are concerned with harming others, then don;t agree to take a job that does this (I would not work for a tobacco company either) and try to raise awareness in others of the ethical problems. But don't expect that one person's actions can solve this. YOu are fighting against one of teh most basic instincts there is which is the instinct to survive. Right now not many people are far enough along the path to say, "yes, I will let that person (or country) kill me becasue I am committed not to harm anyone even in self defense." I know I'm not there yet, although I'm working in on it.
However, the world being what it is, until all beings adopt a philosophy that it is wrong to harm others, there will always be people willing to create harm whether through technology or otherwise. But all you can do as one person is take care of your own actions. We are not all responsible or in control of the actions of others. So if you are concerned with harming others, then don;t agree to take a job that does this (I would not work for a tobacco company either) and try to raise awareness in others of the ethical problems. But don't expect that one person's actions can solve this. YOu are fighting against one of teh most basic instincts there is which is the instinct to survive. Right now not many people are far enough along the path to say, "yes, I will let that person (or country) kill me becasue I am committed not to harm anyone even in self defense." I know I'm not there yet, although I'm working in on it.
I agree completely that if you have to fight a war, you must use the best possible technology available to protect your own people. And that, if technology can be used to kill people, it almost certainly will. The ethics of its use are the responsibility of those who use it, not those who invent or develop it.
My concern is that there seems to be an implication that a high tech war can be fought and won with minimal human cost, terms like “collateral damage” and “friendly fire” are used to sanitise what is happening and make it more palatable to the domestic audience. I agree that “collateral damage” has a wider meaning, but it seems to me that it is currently being misused a lot. Somehow it hides the true human cost of what is happening. If war can be made to appear clean and easy, there is a risk that it will be seen as an acceptable solution rather than as a last resort.
Another problem is that there is now such a great disparity in the availability of the technology that wars are no longer about two armies slogging it out, guerrilla armies/groups can be extremely effective with minimal technology.
(I’m not sure that the effects of the Blitz on London - and the raid on Dresden - were collateral damage as I think that the primary intention was to terrify the civilian population, certainly the doodlebugs had no other purpose.)
My concern is that there seems to be an implication that a high tech war can be fought and won with minimal human cost, terms like “collateral damage” and “friendly fire” are used to sanitise what is happening and make it more palatable to the domestic audience. I agree that “collateral damage” has a wider meaning, but it seems to me that it is currently being misused a lot. Somehow it hides the true human cost of what is happening. If war can be made to appear clean and easy, there is a risk that it will be seen as an acceptable solution rather than as a last resort.
Another problem is that there is now such a great disparity in the availability of the technology that wars are no longer about two armies slogging it out, guerrilla armies/groups can be extremely effective with minimal technology.
(I’m not sure that the effects of the Blitz on London - and the raid on Dresden - were collateral damage as I think that the primary intention was to terrify the civilian population, certainly the doodlebugs had no other purpose.)
CajunCenturion
Programmer
I certainly understand and agree with the sentiment that it would be quite dangerous to make war appear clean and easy, because it is not now, and never should be.
I on the other hand am glad that the terms collateral damage and friendly fire do get used, because they do not in my opinion sanitize the true cost, both human and otherwise, but rather bring attention to it.
If your assessment of the intention of, to use your term, the doodlebugs, is correct: that being to terrify the civilian population by targeting the civilians thus removing them from the collateral damage classification; then I am glad that the technology has advanced to that point where the innocent non-combatants can as much as feasible, be taken out of the equation.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
I on the other hand am glad that the terms collateral damage and friendly fire do get used, because they do not in my opinion sanitize the true cost, both human and otherwise, but rather bring attention to it.
If your assessment of the intention of, to use your term, the doodlebugs, is correct: that being to terrify the civilian population by targeting the civilians thus removing them from the collateral damage classification; then I am glad that the technology has advanced to that point where the innocent non-combatants can as much as feasible, be taken out of the equation.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
-
1
- #14
bluedragon2
IS-IT--Management
There is a lot of interesting reading in this thread. I would like to throw out an opinion that one thing I think technology has done on this subject matter...
It has made wars a lot shorter...
Blue![[dragon]](/data/assets/smilies/dragon.gif "[dragon] [dragon]")
If I wasn't Blue, I would just be a Dragon...
It has made wars a lot shorter...
Blue
If I wasn't Blue, I would just be a Dragon...
- Thread starter
- #16
Thank you very much for all your answers. Some good points were brought up above. Obviously, one should be able to defend himself or his familly to survive, but weapon as rarely the answer. In fact, if you guys look back in our history, you will find that the most advanced civilisations that used the most advanced technology (at the time) disappeared from the surface of the globe - one for one. But my bringing up this point of Ethics is not to debate on the validity of war. Personally, I think that war can be avoided with reason and true communication between countries. Saddam could have been brought back to reason, but one need to have skills to do so. It happens every day in our lives: You could kill your teacher or schoolmate because you are upset with them, or sort it out with diplomacy and true communication. But that's my opinion based on my own studies and experience in life.
I understand that new and precise computer technology used in weapons can avoid destroying innocent lives. There is some validity in this statement. Only that this doesn't stop violence because, as someone stated above, it is man that is at fault. Meaning you have to resolve man first - not the weapons. Then you have sales which makes your new high tech weapons available to those who will use them against you. So it is a vicious circle that doesn't seems to ever end, if man doesn't get fixed up. If he was sane, he wouldn't create weapons to kill. I can agree with this.
Look at Vietnam. The killing stopped when someone agreed to stop the war. It stopped, and people on both side started to live again, only that many suffered from that mess afterward, because they still carry those horrible pictures of insanity in their head.
So, I am looking at the ethical aspect of this, and am still wondering if those who use computer technology to create killing machines should have a subjective look, and see if they have any sort of responsibility for their actions.
I understand that new and precise computer technology used in weapons can avoid destroying innocent lives. There is some validity in this statement. Only that this doesn't stop violence because, as someone stated above, it is man that is at fault. Meaning you have to resolve man first - not the weapons. Then you have sales which makes your new high tech weapons available to those who will use them against you. So it is a vicious circle that doesn't seems to ever end, if man doesn't get fixed up. If he was sane, he wouldn't create weapons to kill. I can agree with this.
Look at Vietnam. The killing stopped when someone agreed to stop the war. It stopped, and people on both side started to live again, only that many suffered from that mess afterward, because they still carry those horrible pictures of insanity in their head.
So, I am looking at the ethical aspect of this, and am still wondering if those who use computer technology to create killing machines should have a subjective look, and see if they have any sort of responsibility for their actions.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Unfortunately arlem, you in your own comments, are addressing some of the very real issues at its foundation. Can people be brought back to reason, and can differences be worked out through diplomacy, cooperation, and communication? Not always, because that premise is based on several foundations which do not always apply.
Both parties have to be willing to communicate and cooperate.
Both parties have to be reasonable.
Both parties have to be rational.
Both parties have to want to resolve the differences.
The killing in Vietnam stopped when someone agreed to stop the war. An agreement requires both parties consent.
If only party stops, then one of three things will happen. The party that stopped will achieve the end of SQLSister's path, or the party that stopped must accept an existence of subjugation, or third, the other party responds in kind. The choice, however, is left entirely left in the hands of the party that did not stop fighting.
You yourself acknowledge that man is not sane. The world is full of irrational people.
So let's look at the ethics involved in advancing weapons technology. After you get past your own survival, there is the survival of your society, your way of life, your moral foundation, the ethics of using that technology to protect and preserve that which you treasure. You seem to want to make a case that the most advanced technological societies died off because they were technologically advanced. I don't think it was the advanced technology that was their undoing, although I'm certainly willing to entertain theories as to support that supposition. On the flip side, how many societies, cultures, and ways of life disappeared from the face of the earth due to lack of technology and the inability to compete with, or defend themselves, from a more technologically advanced people?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Both parties have to be willing to communicate and cooperate.
Both parties have to be reasonable.
Both parties have to be rational.
Both parties have to want to resolve the differences.
The killing in Vietnam stopped when someone agreed to stop the war. An agreement requires both parties consent.
If only party stops, then one of three things will happen. The party that stopped will achieve the end of SQLSister's path, or the party that stopped must accept an existence of subjugation, or third, the other party responds in kind. The choice, however, is left entirely left in the hands of the party that did not stop fighting.
You yourself acknowledge that man is not sane. The world is full of irrational people.
So let's look at the ethics involved in advancing weapons technology. After you get past your own survival, there is the survival of your society, your way of life, your moral foundation, the ethics of using that technology to protect and preserve that which you treasure. You seem to want to make a case that the most advanced technological societies died off because they were technologically advanced. I don't think it was the advanced technology that was their undoing, although I'm certainly willing to entertain theories as to support that supposition. On the flip side, how many societies, cultures, and ways of life disappeared from the face of the earth due to lack of technology and the inability to compete with, or defend themselves, from a more technologically advanced people?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
We only have to look at the near wipeout of several indigenous peoples around the world to see what improved technology can lead to. But I wouldn't minimize the diseases brought by the technologically superior people.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
Nor the cures either.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Here's hoping that humanity will advance in technology to the point that everyone has force fields that will make its bearers immune to bullets/missiles/projectiles or any other weapons... and the most harm we can do is to shout comments about the sexual behavior of our enemy's mother.
Until then, we can only strive toward reducing the frequency of war (by advocating diplomacy) and its effects (when diplomacy fails). I think I fall into the same camp as those that designed the first atomic weapons... they hoped that the availability of such weapons would make war on a global scale impossible in the future.
As for the role of IT in the waging of war... If a war takes place that kills 1,000,000 people, and by using advanced technology we could have prevented one of those people from dying... I think it would have been worthwhile.
Until then, we can only strive toward reducing the frequency of war (by advocating diplomacy) and its effects (when diplomacy fails). I think I fall into the same camp as those that designed the first atomic weapons... they hoped that the availability of such weapons would make war on a global scale impossible in the future.
As for the role of IT in the waging of war... If a war takes place that kills 1,000,000 people, and by using advanced technology we could have prevented one of those people from dying... I think it would have been worthwhile.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question