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 Chriss Miller 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
Bringing it into context of the war in Iraq I personally think is going to be more problematic than useful, simply because emotions run high on both sides.
I think arlem quietly mentions the important point though... if it's used within ethical bounds. We can argue till we're blue in the face what any individual administration is doing... but the point is, if you develop technology for someone, you should accept how it may be used by the people using it. Takin the current thread and arlem's comments of with enough tech could he have been captured with no bullets fired. If it's is that good, that basically means the person wielding it can do whatever they like whenever they like. Is that a power you'd want to assist any government in history or present day with? What if you get sci-fi and go a few steps further, you can just replace them unnoticably with or control the way they do things without being detected.
Anyway, I'm rolling back to the point that was hashed out some way up the page... think who you're developing for, reasonably think about what they'll do with it, decide if you're ok with that... if you are, great, if you're not, bad news. I'm not a fan of what was mentioned after that discussion, hey if you don't do it someone else will... so what? Doesn't mean I should be the one who fills that role, doesn't remove my personal responsibility if I make that choice.
-Rob
I think arlem quietly mentions the important point though... if it's used within ethical bounds. We can argue till we're blue in the face what any individual administration is doing... but the point is, if you develop technology for someone, you should accept how it may be used by the people using it. Takin the current thread and arlem's comments of with enough tech could he have been captured with no bullets fired. If it's is that good, that basically means the person wielding it can do whatever they like whenever they like. Is that a power you'd want to assist any government in history or present day with? What if you get sci-fi and go a few steps further, you can just replace them unnoticably with or control the way they do things without being detected.
Anyway, I'm rolling back to the point that was hashed out some way up the page... think who you're developing for, reasonably think about what they'll do with it, decide if you're ok with that... if you are, great, if you're not, bad news. I'm not a fan of what was mentioned after that discussion, hey if you don't do it someone else will... so what? Doesn't mean I should be the one who fills that role, doesn't remove my personal responsibility if I make that choice.
-Rob
Semper:
even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care
1) The aim justifies the means, he? Then where could one "outsider" determine the difference between the "terrorist" and the good-will opponent if both pursue their high aims with unfitting means? The intention of the "deliberator" might be perfectly fine, but disregarding applicable law for it? OK, that's a bit offstream, so let's get back.
2)
if technology makes it easier to make the decision to go in and do something about it
That is actually an important point. I don't mind your disagreeing with me when it comes to developing and improving weaponry. But I would like you to think about this one sentence of yours. It's so easy to just push a button, isn't it?
Would you be able to kill a person with your own hands if facing her directly?(No Ifs, no perhaps, no "conditional 1" case, please - state it!)
We are not only making weapons preciser, but also killing more impersonal, more a "video game". You got a glitch of what killing means, when your cousin told you about his "happening".
No offense taken, none meant.
Greetings,
MakeItSo
even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care
1) The aim justifies the means, he? Then where could one "outsider" determine the difference between the "terrorist" and the good-will opponent if both pursue their high aims with unfitting means? The intention of the "deliberator" might be perfectly fine, but disregarding applicable law for it? OK, that's a bit offstream, so let's get back.
2)
if technology makes it easier to make the decision to go in and do something about it
That is actually an important point. I don't mind your disagreeing with me when it comes to developing and improving weaponry. But I would like you to think about this one sentence of yours. It's so easy to just push a button, isn't it?
Would you be able to kill a person with your own hands if facing her directly?(No Ifs, no perhaps, no "conditional 1" case, please - state it!)
We are not only making weapons preciser, but also killing more impersonal, more a "video game". You got a glitch of what killing means, when your cousin told you about his "happening".
No offense taken, none meant.
Greetings,
MakeItSo
We are not only making weapons preciser, but also killing more impersonal, more a "video game". You got a glitch of what killing means, when your cousin told you about his "happening".
I don't believe anyone involved in war time activities would ever describe killing as impersonal.
No matter how good your technology is you still need to put boots on the ground to win. All the advancements in technology cannot erase the reality that people in war zones live with for the rest of their lives. All the advancements in technology will never be able to accurately portray that reality. Killing will never be impersonal to those brave souls that politicians use for their own personal goals and beliefs. God-bless those souls who willingly step up to the line so that we are free to discuss it later. If technology can bring just one more of them home to their families, then it is an investment well made.
I don't believe anyone involved in war time activities would ever describe killing as impersonal.
No matter how good your technology is you still need to put boots on the ground to win. All the advancements in technology cannot erase the reality that people in war zones live with for the rest of their lives. All the advancements in technology will never be able to accurately portray that reality. Killing will never be impersonal to those brave souls that politicians use for their own personal goals and beliefs. God-bless those souls who willingly step up to the line so that we are free to discuss it later. If technology can bring just one more of them home to their families, then it is an investment well made.
But what about the "war games" that make war seem so impersonal? Even the army is using them as a recruitment campaign! Granted this is technology that doesn't kill people, but it conditions the users to become more immune to violence and may encourage violent tendenancies.
Leslie
Leslie
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
MakeitSo "The aim justifies the means, he"
I knew someone would twist what I said either intentionally or unintentionally.
I said "even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care"
Which means I don't care about the motivation if the end result is good. "The end justifies the means" means "I don't care about the cost so long as I get results" HUGE difference in the 2.
"It's so easy to just push a button, isn't it?"
No it isn't. Things make it easier but you still have to think about the costs. Is the costs acceptible. Can we make it in effect cheaper (not money wise but lives here)
Also you'll see that with the weapons getting more advanced the controls on weapons are getting better. Rules of engagement are much stricter these days.
I don't know anyone in the military that treats combat as a video game. Talk to most people that have killed someone in combat and find out how they truely feel about it. The idiots that mouth off about wanting to kill someone and get in combat are most often the people that others in the military don't want around them.
No one can answer your question if they would or would not kill someone if they had to until they actually go through with it. I will not answer that question because it is morbid. When people find out I was a Marine and ask me "If i've ever shot anyone or killed anyone" I look at them and say "Why would you want to so eagerly want to know something like that?". Also your you using gender neutral term of "a person" and then change it to feminen term you will find many people that first think they could might change their answer without realising why. It is instinct for men to want to protect women. Most men can take seeing violence to a man better then to a woman.....just a note for your statement.
The decision you talk about are made at the brass level. They don't push real buttons most of the time they push virtual ones. Their decisions are the same. Let's seperate those making the decisions from those fighting the wars. Technology can help both. Those making the decisions do think about the lives they take indirectly and I can assure you that those actually fighting feel the life of loss on both sides most of the time.
"War games" bad term. Combat training, live fire exercises is what the military call it. I've never had any officers refer to anything we've done as "war games" thats a term I only here the media use. Anyway to explain it....it isn't to make war impersonal or numb us to it. Combat training is like anything you try to learn. They more you do it the better you get at it. I'll site a few training situations I've gone through first hand and they are all similiar
"Live fire Exercise" - You do a mission with live rounds going overhead. it is a natural reaction to be scared. You don't get numb to the bullets going overhead you just learn to accept it and know that if a bullet has your name on it you can't do anything about it but you can reduce that risk by keeping your butt close to the ground.
"Cold weather training" - One thing we had to do (multiple times) is jump into a hole cut into the ice, fully go under with full gear, come back up state our name rank and SS# before we where aloud out. I can tell you the first time I did it I was on the verge of panicing. But I learnd to keep calm thus I could concentrate on what needed to be done (getting out of the freezing water)
"CS Gas (tear gas) training" - Marines have to go to the gas chamber once a year. Here you go into a enclosed area filled with CS gas with your gasmask on. Instructors ensure you know how to don and clear your gas mask. At the end you pull off your gas mask and walk out. For those that don't know CS gas stings like the peper spray many people use for personal protection. It is common use in combat situations. We get directly exposed to CS (force to breath it in) to get us used to the fact that you can feel like your lungs and eyes are burning but you won't die from it and you are still effective. For just over a year I also got to help run the CS chambers which means I got to do it about 8 times a month some times and instead of being in there for 5 minutes I'd be in there for an hour or more multiple times a day and as instructors we just didn't wear gas masks because it made our job to difficult.
"Sword Drills" - Being a NCO in the USMC means I went to NCO school (twice actually, I was injured the first time around) and we learn to use the calvery sword. One of the moves is coming from rest postion to the attention position. Rest position has your feet should width apart and the sword, in your right hand, tip resting on the ground by your right foot. The attention position had the sword tip up at your right ear. This movement is done by a quick snap of the wrist flicking the sword in about a 180 degree arc. The natural tendancy for those that do this for the first time (and many times after) is to move your head to the left just as you would if someone through a basebase 2 inches to the right of you....you flintch away. With practise you learn to not do that.
"WSSI training" - water safty training. One thing I had to do was stay in the water while my hands and feet where tied behind my back. Because of the way we were tied we, when in a relaxed state would be face down in the water posing an interesting situation for breathing. You would breath by gently rolling your head to the side exhailing quickly and taking a deep breath and roll back to the resting position. If done properly you floated just fine. If you started to panic or rushed you would start bobbing in the water making it harder to get a breath of air.
Training in the military is about teaching you to cope with stress. You learn to manage situations that would panic most other people in. Some things you do so much through repition that they become second nature and thus while in a stressful situation you perform them without any consious thought thus leaving you thought facilties available for the things that you where not trained as much in or not at all.
All of this training has a secondary effect of building your confidence. This is why many good military people appear arrogant. You get a huge can do attitude because you learn that so many things you would have never thought you could do you could and more importantly so many things that you might have said "I can do that, that isn't that big of a deal" you learn how hard they where but that you could still do it. I never got mad at my Marines that failed to do something as long as they would try agian. They might not known it at the time from me yelling at them but hey....I only yelled at them in certian situations, I never yelled in an administrative task or on training like CPR or first aid in a class room....we has special trianing for them to get stressed with that training in the field.
I knew someone would twist what I said either intentionally or unintentionally.
I said "even if the end reason really isn't all about stopping the geneside but partly for ecconomic reasons, I really don't care"
Which means I don't care about the motivation if the end result is good. "The end justifies the means" means "I don't care about the cost so long as I get results" HUGE difference in the 2.
"It's so easy to just push a button, isn't it?"
No it isn't. Things make it easier but you still have to think about the costs. Is the costs acceptible. Can we make it in effect cheaper (not money wise but lives here)
Also you'll see that with the weapons getting more advanced the controls on weapons are getting better. Rules of engagement are much stricter these days.
I don't know anyone in the military that treats combat as a video game. Talk to most people that have killed someone in combat and find out how they truely feel about it. The idiots that mouth off about wanting to kill someone and get in combat are most often the people that others in the military don't want around them.
No one can answer your question if they would or would not kill someone if they had to until they actually go through with it. I will not answer that question because it is morbid. When people find out I was a Marine and ask me "If i've ever shot anyone or killed anyone" I look at them and say "Why would you want to so eagerly want to know something like that?". Also your you using gender neutral term of "a person" and then change it to feminen term you will find many people that first think they could might change their answer without realising why. It is instinct for men to want to protect women. Most men can take seeing violence to a man better then to a woman.....just a note for your statement.
The decision you talk about are made at the brass level. They don't push real buttons most of the time they push virtual ones. Their decisions are the same. Let's seperate those making the decisions from those fighting the wars. Technology can help both. Those making the decisions do think about the lives they take indirectly and I can assure you that those actually fighting feel the life of loss on both sides most of the time.
"War games" bad term. Combat training, live fire exercises is what the military call it. I've never had any officers refer to anything we've done as "war games" thats a term I only here the media use. Anyway to explain it....it isn't to make war impersonal or numb us to it. Combat training is like anything you try to learn. They more you do it the better you get at it. I'll site a few training situations I've gone through first hand and they are all similiar
"Live fire Exercise" - You do a mission with live rounds going overhead. it is a natural reaction to be scared. You don't get numb to the bullets going overhead you just learn to accept it and know that if a bullet has your name on it you can't do anything about it but you can reduce that risk by keeping your butt close to the ground.
"Cold weather training" - One thing we had to do (multiple times) is jump into a hole cut into the ice, fully go under with full gear, come back up state our name rank and SS# before we where aloud out. I can tell you the first time I did it I was on the verge of panicing. But I learnd to keep calm thus I could concentrate on what needed to be done (getting out of the freezing water)
"CS Gas (tear gas) training" - Marines have to go to the gas chamber once a year. Here you go into a enclosed area filled with CS gas with your gasmask on. Instructors ensure you know how to don and clear your gas mask. At the end you pull off your gas mask and walk out. For those that don't know CS gas stings like the peper spray many people use for personal protection. It is common use in combat situations. We get directly exposed to CS (force to breath it in) to get us used to the fact that you can feel like your lungs and eyes are burning but you won't die from it and you are still effective. For just over a year I also got to help run the CS chambers which means I got to do it about 8 times a month some times and instead of being in there for 5 minutes I'd be in there for an hour or more multiple times a day and as instructors we just didn't wear gas masks because it made our job to difficult.
"Sword Drills" - Being a NCO in the USMC means I went to NCO school (twice actually, I was injured the first time around) and we learn to use the calvery sword. One of the moves is coming from rest postion to the attention position. Rest position has your feet should width apart and the sword, in your right hand, tip resting on the ground by your right foot. The attention position had the sword tip up at your right ear. This movement is done by a quick snap of the wrist flicking the sword in about a 180 degree arc. The natural tendancy for those that do this for the first time (and many times after) is to move your head to the left just as you would if someone through a basebase 2 inches to the right of you....you flintch away. With practise you learn to not do that.
"WSSI training" - water safty training. One thing I had to do was stay in the water while my hands and feet where tied behind my back. Because of the way we were tied we, when in a relaxed state would be face down in the water posing an interesting situation for breathing. You would breath by gently rolling your head to the side exhailing quickly and taking a deep breath and roll back to the resting position. If done properly you floated just fine. If you started to panic or rushed you would start bobbing in the water making it harder to get a breath of air.
Training in the military is about teaching you to cope with stress. You learn to manage situations that would panic most other people in. Some things you do so much through repition that they become second nature and thus while in a stressful situation you perform them without any consious thought thus leaving you thought facilties available for the things that you where not trained as much in or not at all.
All of this training has a secondary effect of building your confidence. This is why many good military people appear arrogant. You get a huge can do attitude because you learn that so many things you would have never thought you could do you could and more importantly so many things that you might have said "I can do that, that isn't that big of a deal" you learn how hard they where but that you could still do it. I never got mad at my Marines that failed to do something as long as they would try agian. They might not known it at the time from me yelling at them but hey....I only yelled at them in certian situations, I never yelled in an administrative task or on training like CPR or first aid in a class room....we has special trianing for them to get stressed with that training in the field.
Semper:
I knew someone would twist what I said either intentionally or unintentionally
Happens all the time to every one in this thread... ;-)
Also your you using gender neutral term of "a person" and then change it to feminen term
Ahhmm - that was Gerglish, sorry... (i.e. German English. In German, "a person" is feminine gender. That's why)![[blush]](/data/assets/smilies/blush.gif "[blush] [blush]")
That was an impressive list of training measures you wrote down, and it helps clarifying something:
Of course you as a soldier as well as all who actively participate in any war do not simply push buttons.
But: They don't push real buttons most of the time they push virtual ones
You are absolutely right. Now replace "pushing virtual buttons" with "deciding to attack/strike/..., i.e. to kill".
That is actually what I was trying to say. I had no more time yesterday, so I'll clear it up today:
No person in a normal state of mind is able to kill another. (As long as the person is not enfuriated by the death of a brother/child or of any contemptible deeds towards others).
That is because you are directly aware of what you are doing as long as you face your opponent eye to eye.
With increasing use of technology, death loses its face - and this facilitates the decision to go to war. That's what I meant with "impersonal" and "pushing buttons".
And it is this technology taking away the responsibility for the outcome from the button-pusher to the one responsible for the technology!
If 800 children get killed by a mis-lead missile in Iraq, it wasn't the fault of the one deciding to bomb the true target, it was then the faulty guiding system leading to that terrible accident!
I might have a sort of extremistic, namely pacifistic perspective, and no extreme can be the ideal. However the problem is to find the dividing line, or let's say area between the extreme and the intermediate course.
There is no black and white, it's all shades of grey. Which grey is the right one? Can you tell for everybody?
Or isn't it that everyone has to find his/her own grey?
Each contributor to this thread has given so many valuable opinions, insights into moral valuation of weapon technology. But still I find it hard to see the middle path. Perhaps because it's not a linear path but more a cloud of "right" ways without sharp-defined borders or ins and outs.
I wish you all the best for the upcoming holidays and the new year.
And I hope these gruesome news will come to an end. My thoughts are with the families of all those down there...
[santa2]
Make it SO
I knew someone would twist what I said either intentionally or unintentionally
Happens all the time to every one in this thread... ;-)
Also your you using gender neutral term of "a person" and then change it to feminen term
Ahhmm - that was Gerglish, sorry... (i.e. German English. In German, "a person" is feminine gender. That's why)
That was an impressive list of training measures you wrote down, and it helps clarifying something:
Of course you as a soldier as well as all who actively participate in any war do not simply push buttons.
But: They don't push real buttons most of the time they push virtual ones
You are absolutely right. Now replace "pushing virtual buttons" with "deciding to attack/strike/..., i.e. to kill".
That is actually what I was trying to say. I had no more time yesterday, so I'll clear it up today:
No person in a normal state of mind is able to kill another. (As long as the person is not enfuriated by the death of a brother/child or of any contemptible deeds towards others).
That is because you are directly aware of what you are doing as long as you face your opponent eye to eye.
With increasing use of technology, death loses its face - and this facilitates the decision to go to war. That's what I meant with "impersonal" and "pushing buttons".
And it is this technology taking away the responsibility for the outcome from the button-pusher to the one responsible for the technology!
If 800 children get killed by a mis-lead missile in Iraq, it wasn't the fault of the one deciding to bomb the true target, it was then the faulty guiding system leading to that terrible accident!
I might have a sort of extremistic, namely pacifistic perspective, and no extreme can be the ideal. However the problem is to find the dividing line, or let's say area between the extreme and the intermediate course.
There is no black and white, it's all shades of grey. Which grey is the right one? Can you tell for everybody?
Or isn't it that everyone has to find his/her own grey?
Each contributor to this thread has given so many valuable opinions, insights into moral valuation of weapon technology. But still I find it hard to see the middle path. Perhaps because it's not a linear path but more a cloud of "right" ways without sharp-defined borders or ins and outs.
I wish you all the best for the upcoming holidays and the new year.
And I hope these gruesome news will come to an end. My thoughts are with the families of all those down there...
[santa2]
Make it SO
CajunCenturion
Programmer
"No person in a normal state of mind is able to kill another. (As long as the person is not enfuriated by the death of a brother/child or of any contemptible deeds towards others)."
So someone who kills for retribution while in an emotional rage is in a normal state of mind, and the person who kills in self-defense is not in a normal state of mind?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
So someone who kills for retribution while in an emotional rage is in a normal state of mind, and the person who kills in self-defense is not in a normal state of mind?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion
Programmer
sorry about premature return.
Surely that is not what you meant to say MakeItSo
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Surely that is not what you meant to say MakeItSo
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
CajunCenturion
Programmer
MakeItSo - Since you brought it up, I would like to ask you a question.
Given that you are coming from a pacifistic perspective, I understand and respect the fact that you find all violence and killing abhorrent, and to be avoided whenever possible. But once hostilities have begun, wouldn't the pacifist want it to end as quickly as possible, with minimal harm and death? Doesn't the advanced technology help toward that end?
I do not wish to discuss the situation in Iraq, but only to use it as a vehicle in asking this question.
Estimates vary as to how many people were killed per day by the now ousted regime. But all estimates (at least all the one's I've seen) show less deaths per day now, even with the skirmishes), than during the previous regime. From the pacifist perspective, which is better, perserve the status quo with no war, or the situation as it is today? Was the use of technology in this situation a good thing, or a bad thing?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Given that you are coming from a pacifistic perspective, I understand and respect the fact that you find all violence and killing abhorrent, and to be avoided whenever possible. But once hostilities have begun, wouldn't the pacifist want it to end as quickly as possible, with minimal harm and death? Doesn't the advanced technology help toward that end?
I do not wish to discuss the situation in Iraq, but only to use it as a vehicle in asking this question.
Estimates vary as to how many people were killed per day by the now ousted regime. But all estimates (at least all the one's I've seen) show less deaths per day now, even with the skirmishes), than during the previous regime. From the pacifist perspective, which is better, perserve the status quo with no war, or the situation as it is today? Was the use of technology in this situation a good thing, or a bad thing?
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
indianchief
Instructor
Guys, think we can no longer do anything about what a computer can or cannot be used for. The computer is dictating our very lives!
Talking about "killing," I'd like to put in my vote: At least use the computer to "kill" spammers! My wich this Christmas is some kind of system where I can send msgs to spammers in which weverytime they hit the keyboard, all they will see in the screen is the word "KILL KILL KILL..."
Talking about "killing," I'd like to put in my vote: At least use the computer to "kill" spammers! My wich this Christmas is some kind of system where I can send msgs to spammers in which weverytime they hit the keyboard, all they will see in the screen is the word "KILL KILL KILL..."
SemperFiDownUnda
Instructor
Oh I should have clarified that my comment on "twisting my words" was meant that it was my fault for not clarifying what I meant the first time around.
What do you define as a "Normal state of mind"?
I would care to say the commanders above me where aware of what they where doing. I would say they where for the most part directly aware what they where doing and what we would have to do. This is actually very common in the Marine Corps especially officers in charge of combat. The officers don't hide back in washington all the time. The majority of officers I served under both directly and indirectly would and often did subject themselves to the same situations we where in. I can tell you its a huge motivation and moral boost to see your officers when times are wrough. When they aren't there you reflect back on the past experiences and feel confident that they are not "Removed" from the situation mentally.
I don't believe, personnally, that technology is taking responsiblity away from the decision makers and putting it on the inventors of technology. They are responsible for their action. Colt don't get sued with someone is killed with their weapons. They have to take responcibility if they produce a defective weapon. This is the same thing with technology....for a M16E2 is a semi-automatic rifle that makes killing easier then a M1, (actually I like the M1 better for long distance shooting). This is technology just as much as a guided missle is. I understand the operator of a guided missle will not directly see the life(s) they took but neither do mortar men.
'If 800 children get killed by a mis-lead missile in Iraq..." I agree....this is a tragedy of war. Should the missle builder be sued? Probably not because the missle probably still performed to specifications. Yes it is sad that tolerances are there when this happens but nothing is perfect. No if the missle was faulty because of neglagance then you will find that the producer would be responcible. This is just normal engineering practices.
If you look at war in general less of these inoscent civilians get killed because of advancement in technology. People constantly say we are becoming a more violent society. I believe people are just being made more aware of the exsisting violence in the world in most cases.
I agree with you on the "right path" there will never be a "right path" for everyone because there will always be people on both extremes.
CajunCenturion has it right on the on the money. If 20 people a day are loosing their life because of something and you can do something to lower that number to 19 even if it is via a violence are we not better off. Bear in mind too the the original 20 where mostly the oppressed and hopefully most of the 19 where oppressors .... I'd say thats pretty good.
Ifyou could reduce the lives lost via normal peaceful means then I'm all for that. But despite what some people say not all situations are able to be solved by this means or it would in the end take to long. I'm sure Hitler's regime could have been negotiated with....but by that time all the Jewish people would have been dead....assuming that Germany didn't just take over the entire world because no one was willing to fight.
What do you define as a "Normal state of mind"?
I would care to say the commanders above me where aware of what they where doing. I would say they where for the most part directly aware what they where doing and what we would have to do. This is actually very common in the Marine Corps especially officers in charge of combat. The officers don't hide back in washington all the time. The majority of officers I served under both directly and indirectly would and often did subject themselves to the same situations we where in. I can tell you its a huge motivation and moral boost to see your officers when times are wrough. When they aren't there you reflect back on the past experiences and feel confident that they are not "Removed" from the situation mentally.
I don't believe, personnally, that technology is taking responsiblity away from the decision makers and putting it on the inventors of technology. They are responsible for their action. Colt don't get sued with someone is killed with their weapons. They have to take responcibility if they produce a defective weapon. This is the same thing with technology....for a M16E2 is a semi-automatic rifle that makes killing easier then a M1, (actually I like the M1 better for long distance shooting). This is technology just as much as a guided missle is. I understand the operator of a guided missle will not directly see the life(s) they took but neither do mortar men.
'If 800 children get killed by a mis-lead missile in Iraq..." I agree....this is a tragedy of war. Should the missle builder be sued? Probably not because the missle probably still performed to specifications. Yes it is sad that tolerances are there when this happens but nothing is perfect. No if the missle was faulty because of neglagance then you will find that the producer would be responcible. This is just normal engineering practices.
If you look at war in general less of these inoscent civilians get killed because of advancement in technology. People constantly say we are becoming a more violent society. I believe people are just being made more aware of the exsisting violence in the world in most cases.
I agree with you on the "right path" there will never be a "right path" for everyone because there will always be people on both extremes.
CajunCenturion has it right on the on the money. If 20 people a day are loosing their life because of something and you can do something to lower that number to 19 even if it is via a violence are we not better off. Bear in mind too the the original 20 where mostly the oppressed and hopefully most of the 19 where oppressors .... I'd say thats pretty good.
Ifyou could reduce the lives lost via normal peaceful means then I'm all for that. But despite what some people say not all situations are able to be solved by this means or it would in the end take to long. I'm sure Hitler's regime could have been negotiated with....but by that time all the Jewish people would have been dead....assuming that Germany didn't just take over the entire world because no one was willing to fight.
Hi Cajun.
Concerning your question:
...once hostilities have begun, wouldn't the pacifist want it to end as quickly as possible, with minimal harm and death? Doesn't the advanced technology help toward that end?
That's a good question and it is one I ask myself over and over again wherever terrorism needs to be countered.
My answer: yes and no!
Yes: Everybody (including me of course) wants any hostilities to end or be ended as quickly as possible and advanced tech. does in fact speed up and facilitate the ending.
No: Although (see above), I think it's the wrong way. I cannot offer a quick and short term solution which could replace the use of weapon force, but I think that instead of advanced weaponry, advanced humanity should be the goal. (Sounds like from a cheap movie, I know, but that's what I'm convinced of.)
That starts low: with respecting and accepting yourself, first. I know I have my weak points and faults, but I accept them as part of what makes me the way I am. Whithout them, I'd be different (and I'm not sure, if I would like this other I).
After you have become a stable and self-content person, you can respect and accept others with much more honesty and awareness. Continuing level-wise upwards from this stage, will already make violent conflicts almost impossible.
I've had my last brawl ages ago - well.. at least 12 years ago. (Although I like going to pubs and drinkin'... ;-))
But that is philosophical and - admitted - ideological.
I must admit, that violence and thus weapon technology might be necessary - but I just cannot approve it for the stated reasons.
I know you have a different (and understandable) view but I am also sure you know quite well (and perhaps understand) mine, too.
![[santa]](/data/assets/smilies/santa.gif "[santa] [santa]")
Concerning your question:
...once hostilities have begun, wouldn't the pacifist want it to end as quickly as possible, with minimal harm and death? Doesn't the advanced technology help toward that end?
That's a good question and it is one I ask myself over and over again wherever terrorism needs to be countered.
My answer: yes and no!
Yes: Everybody (including me of course) wants any hostilities to end or be ended as quickly as possible and advanced tech. does in fact speed up and facilitate the ending.
No: Although (see above), I think it's the wrong way. I cannot offer a quick and short term solution which could replace the use of weapon force, but I think that instead of advanced weaponry, advanced humanity should be the goal. (Sounds like from a cheap movie, I know, but that's what I'm convinced of.)
That starts low: with respecting and accepting yourself, first. I know I have my weak points and faults, but I accept them as part of what makes me the way I am. Whithout them, I'd be different (and I'm not sure, if I would like this other I).
After you have become a stable and self-content person, you can respect and accept others with much more honesty and awareness. Continuing level-wise upwards from this stage, will already make violent conflicts almost impossible.
I've had my last brawl ages ago - well.. at least 12 years ago. (Although I like going to pubs and drinkin'... ;-))
But that is philosophical and - admitted - ideological.
I must admit, that violence and thus weapon technology might be necessary - but I just cannot approve it for the stated reasons.
I know you have a different (and understandable) view but I am also sure you know quite well (and perhaps understand) mine, too.
CajunCenturion
Programmer
That understandable MakeItSo, and part of my questions was to gain a better understanding of your point of view, which you have provided.
Our views are different, and I cannot say that either of us is right or wrong, only that we differ. I respect your position, and am glad that you are willing to share it.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
Our views are different, and I cannot say that either of us is right or wrong, only that we differ. I respect your position, and am glad that you are willing to share it.
Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein
...Computer technology is doing the same thing as many other technologies did in their time.
The sharpened blade--most likely first invented for killing animals for food, was co-opted by the military and put on a spearhead. Same with gunpowder, Tnt, the airplane, atomic energy etc., etc. All were invented with peaceful uses in mind and human nature did then as it always will--co-opted these things for the express purpose of killing more people faster.
So, way back when Og put a sharp rock on a stick to kill his vittles, his neighbor Thoog, a tribal leader, decided it would be a good thing for killing their rival tribe. That whole "knocking him over the head with a rock" thing was getting messy and inefficient.
And the same has happened for many technologies since then, and I see no reason that computer technology would be different.
So I guess it doesn't matter if it 'should' or 'shouldn't' be used to kill people--if there is a way for a new technology to expedite killing people, it will be used for that purpose. And if it's used against a country, then to even the playing field that other country will have to adopt it. We (the US) can say all we want about how 'chemical weapons' are so bad, but I think that the attack on Hiroshima was worse than any chemical attack has ever been. Don't get me wrong--I support that decision--it most likely saved more lives than were lost--but that just goes to show that whether it's a 'brutal dictatorship' like Iraq, or a 'kinder, gentler' country like the US--we do what we have to do to kill as many people as possible to achieve the objective. I think the notion of 'the objective' is perhaps more of an interesting avenue, since I believe any group of humans will do what they need to do when their very existence is threatened.
--jsteph
The sharpened blade--most likely first invented for killing animals for food, was co-opted by the military and put on a spearhead. Same with gunpowder, Tnt, the airplane, atomic energy etc., etc. All were invented with peaceful uses in mind and human nature did then as it always will--co-opted these things for the express purpose of killing more people faster.
So, way back when Og put a sharp rock on a stick to kill his vittles, his neighbor Thoog, a tribal leader, decided it would be a good thing for killing their rival tribe. That whole "knocking him over the head with a rock" thing was getting messy and inefficient.
And the same has happened for many technologies since then, and I see no reason that computer technology would be different.
So I guess it doesn't matter if it 'should' or 'shouldn't' be used to kill people--if there is a way for a new technology to expedite killing people, it will be used for that purpose. And if it's used against a country, then to even the playing field that other country will have to adopt it. We (the US) can say all we want about how 'chemical weapons' are so bad, but I think that the attack on Hiroshima was worse than any chemical attack has ever been. Don't get me wrong--I support that decision--it most likely saved more lives than were lost--but that just goes to show that whether it's a 'brutal dictatorship' like Iraq, or a 'kinder, gentler' country like the US--we do what we have to do to kill as many people as possible to achieve the objective. I think the notion of 'the objective' is perhaps more of an interesting avenue, since I believe any group of humans will do what they need to do when their very existence is threatened.
--jsteph
SkipVought
Programmer
There's a common saying...
Guns Kill People!
People look at people and the use of technology in different ways...
There are some that seem to want to absolve people of personal responsibility and would rather blame some environmental influence. These people would tend to restrict the access to and use of technology, seeing the technology as "evil".
Others, and I choose this position, feel that technology is not evil, but rather it is what individuals choose to do with technology that should be judged. People ought to be held personally responsible of any and all actions including the use of technology.
If you believe that people can be evil, then society needs the means to protect itself from these people. As these kinds of people gain power and infulence among their friends, town, state, country and world, the threat from their misuse of technology increases. We will never be in a world without war, so to be prepared on WHATEVER level is prudent. This is where technology can have some of its greatest good. The greatest defensive threat can possibly avert a conflict. Once commenced, the most accurate weapons can bring a conflict to a swifter conclusion with fewer casualties.
;-)
Want to get great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at FAQ219-2884
Skip,
Guns Kill People!
People look at people and the use of technology in different ways...
There are some that seem to want to absolve people of personal responsibility and would rather blame some environmental influence. These people would tend to restrict the access to and use of technology, seeing the technology as "evil".
Others, and I choose this position, feel that technology is not evil, but rather it is what individuals choose to do with technology that should be judged. People ought to be held personally responsible of any and all actions including the use of technology.
If you believe that people can be evil, then society needs the means to protect itself from these people. As these kinds of people gain power and infulence among their friends, town, state, country and world, the threat from their misuse of technology increases. We will never be in a world without war, so to be prepared on WHATEVER level is prudent. This is where technology can have some of its greatest good. The greatest defensive threat can possibly avert a conflict. Once commenced, the most accurate weapons can bring a conflict to a swifter conclusion with fewer casualties.
;-)
Want to get great answers to your Tek-Tips questions? Have a look at FAQ219-2884
Skip,
First of all. It is not the computers or the technology that kill someone. The weapon is never the aggressor. If some pyshco decides to go shoot someone, is it the pyscho that is responsible for the murder, or is it the gun? The gun has no free will nor does the computer. Even with AI a computer or technology of some kind, has no concept of life and death. If they don't use computers as a weapon they will just use something else. Computers aren't a danger to the entire world like other weapons such as Nukes.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Question