🚀 go-pugleaf

This article is from rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw%mcnc.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA
 and was received on Sat Aug  9 00:48:15 1986
 

Dave Taylor writes;

> I might be opening the proverbial can of worms, but I'd like to start a
> discussion on the ethical and moral basis for working or not working for 
> an organization that does what you consider to be "offensive technologies".

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by "offensive technologies".
Take the specific example given:

> the assignment was to
> implement some "Probability of Kill" algorithms on the floating point
> processor.

What technology here is offensive?  Methods of probability analysis?
Floating point hardware technology?  Computers in general?  What?
I'm at an almost total loss.

My bewilderment about what "offensive technology" might mean aside, I
think that if the *expected* *outcome* (note well: expected, not
intended, and this must include predictable side-effects) of one's work
is objectionable, then one's work is thereby objectionable.  Note that
this does *NOT* mean that if there is *any* *objectionable* *thing* that
may be expected to result... that would include almost any conceivable
job.  I mean that if, in total, the objectionable results outweigh the
benign results.  And it is important to remember that, even if one
supposes that the end justifies the means, one must never forget that
the means is *part* the end.

As to the classifications given of "why I work on <whatever>":

>    1. It's a job.
>    2. I'm all for military buildup!
>    3. It's the only place I can work on such great <x>!

I think it (uh, how shall I put this) somewhat overly simplistic to
include folks like Oppenheimer, Dyson, and Feynmann in category 2, as it
seems one must with this classification scheme.  I found Dyson's
comments in "Disturbing the Universe" about why he and others did the
things they did to be very thought-provoking, and almost
unclassifiable.

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw