🚀 go-pugleaf

Steve Rice writes;
 
>However, technology is just one more tool in the hands of an individual
>or individuals.  No technology is self-creating or self-directing -- all
>of this must come from the hands and minds of human beings.  If a
>technology is used for good purposes, or if it is used for evil purposes,
>the responsibility is the users'.

Agreed, but, just as we cannot consider photographs independent of the
subjects (more in a 'sec) we cannot consider technology independent of
it's use.  

Considering anything as an 'instantiation of the perfect <x>' (originally
from some pretty famous philosophical types) is a poor solution to the
problem of how do we justify to OURSELVES the creation of objects that
are to be used in `evil' ways?  To say "well, sure I'm working in a 
Germ Warfare lab, but what *I'm* working on is more akin to the study of
disease in man, so it's a good thing, not a bad one" is a poor rationalization.

The comment above about photographs versus their subject isn't as far
from reality as you're no doubt thinking - a photograph can be judged
for it's aesthetics (e.g. surface appearance, size, etc) but for anything
that approaches the FUNCTION of a photograph, the subject matter that
was photographed must be taken into account.  In the same way, a chair
may be considered as a fine example of woodworking, but cannot be really
evaluated as good or bad unless it's function is taken into account.
Consider a chair that cannot support more than 7 pounds - it may be a
fine chair from a MATERIALS point of view, but from a FUNCTIONAL point
of view it's a flop.

I believe that this is the attitude we need to take with technology -
that we can consider creating new viruses for germ warfare as `interesting
experiments and ways to get new and better equipment', but that simply
isn't enough relative to our society.

As scientists and engineers, we have a responsibility to consider ALL the
aspects of what we create, and one of those is FUNCTIONALITY.  We cannot
divorce an atomic bomb from the destruction it wreaks.  We cannot consider
offensive weapon creation as something amoral since the act of creation
is indpendent of any moral or ethical considerations.  I mean, c'mon, 
who's fooling whom?  The FUNCTION and it's place in our ENVIRONMENT is a
critical factor.

>An example of this is a recent tragedy in Seattle, Washington.  

The tragedy is indeed tragic.  There are, as you say, all too many
examples of this sort of behaviour.  On the other hand, this is a poor
example of what we're talking about because this is somewhat of an
overtrivialized example - if, for example, they had been killed with
a small thermonuclear device (!) or, better yet, a hand grenade lobbed
into their living room, then certainly we couldn't argue that the
technology was neutral.  It's a matter of the FUNCTION of the
technology as I said above.  An iron isn't designed to kill people
but it can be used for that.  A grenade IS designed to kill people.
That is one *HELL* of a difference!

Again, though, the fact that they are different shows that we place
a moral 'value' on technology - I'm sure there are very very few people
reading this who are thinking `they're both interesting technologies'.
No.  You're thinking `yeah!  Grenades ARE bad' (nice how I can tell what
you're thinking, isn't it?  *chuckle*)  I think that this is why parents
get concerned when their children play with guns and such - those are
essentially destructive rather than constructive toys...(but that's a 
step into a different subject altogether)

>This is not an isolated example -- it applies across the board.  Even
>the science-fiction "killing machine" (robotic battle tanks, and so on)
>are not signs of evil technology.  A machine which has no good purpose,
>having been built for evil ends, is a product of the minds and the hands
>of men.  And the responsibility for moral judgements lies upon them.

Agreed.  But the object itself has an inherited moral and societal value
by virtue of this.   Again, to circle back to my original comment, 
technology cannot be considered independent of the environment it exists
in.
						-- Dave