Hacker News Reader

Comment by lukeschlather | Hacker News Reader

You're misinterpreting the premise of the article. The article is talking about ethics, not about some sort of danger. From an ethical perspective, if using a nuclear bomb is justified, then the delivery mechanism is irrelevant.

However, in the case of the sentient atomic bomb (and I think talking about it as an android obscures this question) we get in to stickier terrain. A sentient atomic bomb is a sentient being whose sole purpose in life is essentially genocide. That is definitely morally repugnant to me, and by extension I'd say it's problematic in any sane ethical system.

Creating a sentient atomic bomb would be no different in my ethical system from raising a child from birth to be the guidance system for an atomic bomb airplane.

View on HN

> genocide

Homicide, not genocide. Unless you think that all weapons over a certain destructive potential are necessarily used to eradicate certain ethnic groups as opposed to others.

You read "genocide" too narrowly, and write "homicide" too broadly. To annihilate a city and its people is genocide in my book.

That's Humpty Dumpty thinking. You can interpret the words however you like, but effective communication requires some sort of agreement about definitions. For most people, and in dictionaries, "genocide" specifically does not mean "lots of people", no matter how you personally choose to interpret it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide :

    "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or
    in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group"

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007043 :

    It is a very specific term, referring to violent crimes
    committed against groups with the intent to destroy
    the existence of the group.

By all means interpret it differently, just don't expect to communicate effectively.

(And yes, I know that "decimate" used to mean "kill one in ten" and now people use it to mean "kill nearly everyone". I know language changes, but "genocide" is still rather specific, and has not, to my knowledge, broadly changed in the way you intimate.)

I'd say a destroying a city definitely meets that definition. Deliberately destroying part of a national group. Also, the inhabitants of a city are definitely an ethnicity (though that depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.) So, sure, you kill a lot of people it's not genocide, but you systematically eradicate a city, I'd call it genocide.

The inhabitants of a city are not limited to a single ethnicity, so it's still fundamentally wrong. However, this exchange won't get us any further. I have no doubt you won't be convinced, so there seems nothing to be gained by continuing. Feel free to use language as you will.

As I said, it depends on how restrictive a definition of ethnicity you use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnicity

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ethnic

> pertaining to or characteristic of a people, especially a group (ethnic group) sharing a common and distinctive culture, religion, language, or the like.

The inhabitants of a city usually share a common and distinctive culture (and the like.) You're using extremely narrow definitions of genocide as well as ethnicity. Both are vague terms.

  > As I said, it depends on how restrictive
  > a definition of ethnicity you use.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean --- neither more nor less."

You appear to be choosing definitions that don't match those in dictionaries, but I'm sure they're perfectly cromulent.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com