Ah yes, the von Neumann that helped developed both the fission bomb and the hydrogen bomb and aggressively promoted the use of them and tried to start nuclear war. I know von Neumann is held in high regard with respect to his role in computing, but he is hardly a guy worthy of respect for his views on the safety of technology.
This is like discussing whether Stephen Jay Gould or Jimmy Swaggart has a more credible opinion about evolution. I mean, punctuated equilibrium might or might not be correct, but you're being ridiculous.
https://whatever.scalzi.com/2009/10/13/teching-the-tech/ https://archive.is/khTlp
> when you admit that Star Trek has as much to do with plausibly extrapolated science as The A-Team has to do with a realistic look at the lives of military veterans, life gets easier. ... Meta to this is the discussion of why we have to accept that film/tv SF is riding the shortbus — there’s no actual reason it has to be that way — but let’s not get into that right at the moment.
______
* As well as, as you point out, a significant contributor to the development of the fission bomb, the hydrogen bomb, and modern computation. He was also the guy who axiomatized quantum mechanics and the foundations of mathematics, discovered continuous geometry and quantum logic and Hilbert spaces, and solved the compact-groups case of Hilbert's fifth problem. I guess you don't know much about mathematics, so that won't mean much to you; suffice it to say that the "von Neumann machine" was among the least of his achievements. Not bad for a chemical engineer.
> Raging at Trek because its filled with rubber science is a straw man argument. When has any Star Trek show ever pretended to be scientifically accurate? Every Trek show has always been, at the core, an action-adventure drama about contemporary issues refelected off the funhouse mirror of an SF setting. It’s allegory, not extrapolation.
So, don't try to predict the consequences of new technologies by analogies to Star Trek. You'll do as well as predicting the outcome of a war by analogies to Bruce Lee movies. Same goes for Terminator, Dr. Who, and the Jetsons.
And, despite https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MohsScaleOfScien..., the same really goes for fiction in general: fiction is literally, unashamedly, intentionally, nothing but lies. It doesn't tell you anything about reality, just about its authors' beliefs. And when we're talking about things that haven't happened yet, the authors generally don't know any more than you do; even when they have thought about the subject, as is undoubtedly the case with Star Trek's English-speaking extraterrestrials and audio-transmitting vacuum, they may prefer to portray things they know are impossible because they think they'll be more entertaining or help them achieve some other artistic goal.
Don't reason from fictional evidence. It makes you look like a fool.
I can still look up to him as an incredibly brilliant mathematician, computer scientist and engineer without conflating that with him being a good and/or wise human being.
I mostly agree about the point about not basing our views on fiction. I just wanted to point out that of all scientists, of which there are many brilliant ones, there are far better choices for sources of ideas on the ethics of technology. Smarts != Wisdom.
We frequently faced with questions of what we ought to do. Should we take Interstate 80 or Interstate 5? Should we eat a high-carbohydrate diet or a ketogenic diet? Should we pursue dating Barbara or Debora? Should we invest in hydrogen bombs or a larger army?
There are right answers and wrong answers to these questions, as well as answers that are in between. Which answers are right and which answers are wrong depends on two questions: first, it depends on which means will produce which results; and second, it depends on which results would be in accordance with our ends, and which would be destructive to our ends.
So, to decide whether to take Interstate 80 or Interstate 5, we must first decide whether we want to go to Santa Cruz or to Sacramento (assuming we are in San Francisco), and then consult a map. The map will tell us whether taking Interstate 80 will have the result of getting to Santa Cruz or not. Then it is of great importance whether the map is accurate and covers the area in question, and of no importance whatsoever that the mapmaker wanted to go to Sacramento, while we want to go to Santa Cruz.
Von Neumann provided an extremely accurate map of the consequences of the hydrogen bomb to the government of his time, as well as the chances of success of various ways of achieving nuclear fusion. The people that followed his advice were able to achieve historically unprecedented military power, which was their intent. If von Neumann's map had been inaccurate, they would have failed and sunken into irrelevance, like our own Project Huemul here in Argentina, which never succeeded in achieving nuclear fusion. The fact that you yourself do not want to create powerful weapons and achieve military victory is of no relevance whatsoever.
The failure of the peaceful nuclear-energy Project Huemul, particularly in the context of the rather heavy bets we had placed on it, was a significant step in Argentina's decline. It was precipitated in large part by the president emptying the academies of his political opponents, depriving his projects of the accurate and brilliant guidance he needed to make good decisions about questions of science. Perhaps, for all their smarts, they were unwise to oppose the president. (This error was repeated by later military dictatorships, further into Argentina's decline, who expelled and sometimes killed the partisans of the banished former president; the University of Buenos Aires, among others, still keenly feels the loss.)
Of course it is possible for a map to be correct about one such factual question and erroneous or silent about another; no map of Argentina will tell you how to get to Bakersfield, and an unreliable map might mislabel Interstate 80 as Interstate 70 despite correctly labeling Interstate 5. But you have given no reason to suspect that von Neumann was inaccurate about the likely results of self-reproducing machines (and, in case you haven't read him, gray goo and Skynet are not similar to what he predicted); you have merely labeled him "unwise" because, at least on questions of nuclear disarmament, he would have been your political opponent.