Comment by parasubvert
3 months ago
There was a time (1943?) when dealing with the US department of war meant serving for humanity's long-term well being.
3 months ago
There was a time (1943?) when dealing with the US department of war meant serving for humanity's long-term well being.
Look I'm not going to disagree, obviously - but even in those times, you could argue that helping the department of war in some ways will contribute to deaths you might not necessarily want to be a part of. Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki is still widely discussed today for a myriad of reasons, as is conventional bombing of cities in both Nazi Germany and Japan. We can both agree that fighting nazis is a good thing while at the same time have a moral objection to participating in the war effort.
And I think the stakes have changed today - it's one thing to be making bombs which might or might not hit civilians, it's another to be making an AI system that gives humans a "score" that is then used by the military to decide if they live or die, as some systems already do("Lavender" used by the IDF is exactly this).
Even with the best intentions in mind, you don't know how the systems you built will be used by the governments of tomorrow.
> you could argue that helping the department of war in some ways will contribute to deaths you might not necessarily want to be a part of.
Of course.
> Even with the best intentions in mind, you don't know how the systems you built will be used by the governments of tomorrow.
All technology and labour can be abused, yes. All the more reason to ensure a strong system of law so that the government can't just seize businesses or their technology on a whim. Back in WW2 such seizures happened, but not too often because it was not popular.
But then the United Mine Workers coal miners went on strike in 1943, and the War Labor Disputes Act was created (even overriding an FDR veto), threatening to nationally seize the mines and conscript the miners with the Selective Service Act. Thankfully cooler heads prevailed. The US populace turned against unions due to the popularity of the war effort, and the miners went back to work after getting assurances that their pay demands would be negotiated.
Ultimately I think we're far away from this in today's era (though the US or Canadian governments forcing back-to-work legislation is increasingly normal), but the point is, pacifists have limited options in wartime if a majority of public opinion is in support of the war effort.
//but even in those times, you could argue
This is the oft-spoken fallacy of the benefit of hindsight. Folks in that situation 80 years ago did what they had to do, to stop Japan from continuing to rape and murder hundreds of thousands of people in southeast Asia. But of course, you would have found a better option. How's the view, standing on the shoulders of giants?
I feel like my argument flew so high above your head it literally touched the clouds.
Brave words coming from a sockpuppet.