Hacker News Reader

Comment by Kenji | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't the internet a direct result of government funded military research? I'm all for boycotting war but I think there is some value in that research.

EDIT: Okay, he addressed that point in his article. However, I'd like to double down on that objection. In this fantastic video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87WK_7lkrVg ), Physicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson argues how great projects come into being. He names 3 main drivers: 1. Religion and serving deities (mostly irrelevant in the western world, how the pyramids got built), 2. through economic incentives and 3. as a survival instinct (war). Historically, it's always been one of the three. I think military research is essential for progress and we need other paths to make sure that our nation does not go to war. The solution to war is not scientific ignorance, it's a pacifist population.

View on HN

Not sure why you were downvoted for this, especially your last sentence. I think it's an important perspective, and as it relates to the author, if he _had_ helped "build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets", that might have greatly helped lessen civilian deaths during war. He says "I will not devote my life's work toward making warfare more effective". Sticking to principle is admirable, but choosing not to use one's intellectual gifts in ways that could reduce innocent suffering is also a choice with consequences. It's just a lot easier for people to ignore "how many I could have prevented from dying" than "how many my work has been the cause of their death." Mikhail Kalashnikov had a much humbler perspective when people asked him about the AK-47 (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/30/russia.kateconn...).

This same argument supports your favorite NSA surveillance program.

In fact, the assumption you are making is that the use of violence is a constant, but the effect of smart cruise missiles, etc., is to make it more palatable and attractive.

There is a Jevon's Paradox with the use of drones. Look at the total hours flown thus far.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

There's a weird phenomenon in U.S. political system where it's much easier to get spending approved by congress/voters if it's classified as "military". Thus many things that could be civilian projects end up as military.

That phenomenon is called "Military-Industrial Complex" ;-|

Dwight Eisenhower's "Military Industrial Complex" speech noted: "Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."

Furthermore, he warned "Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite."

I grew up in Dayton, Ohio around a relatively major Air Force Base. The presence of contractors of every stripe (Northrop, Oracle, Booz Allen, General Dynamics), and the stories I would hear about the projects and funds they were approved for were mind-boggling.

That is part of the reason I think this stance is so admirable and interesting. I do not think defense spending is inherently negative. But even for those who do believe that in a strong way, I think it would be hard to leave those opportunities on the table and walk away.

At the end of the day, you need to sleep at night. I respect people who listen to their conscience.

Generals always prepare to fight the last war. As we move away from 20th century nation state conflict, that means the successor to the current counter-insurgency conflict. There's a pretty clear implication to that, which removes many of the comfortable abstractions that blowing up Soviet tanks came with.

There's a popular Quaker anecdote in the OP which is worth quoting in full:

"Many years ago, when William Penn converted to Quakerism and pacifism, he was troubled by the thought of having to give up the sword that he wore, a great honor at the time. He asked George Fox, the founder of Quakerism, what he should do. Fox told him, 'William, wear thy sword as long as thee can.'"

It's ultimately the choice of each individual to determine when they can no longer bear their sword.

Did you read the article before commenting? This point is mentioned by the author.

I skimmed it but I missed that point. My bad :/

>3. as a survival instinct (war)

Survival instinct and war are two separate concepts, at least when it comes to recent history and western countries.

They are well and truly separate because it is only the losing side that are forced to innovate drastically, that is only the side facing and existential threat.

I also think that these factors are mostly important for the _adoption_ and development of innovative ideas. I don't think going to work trying to invent a better radar is magically more efficient during wartime when you worry about your family being killed rather than during peace time.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com