Live data from Hacker News

MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

thetech.com

141–147 of 147 posts

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#141
post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> slavery built everything we love Not at all. The repudiation of slavery built everything we love. The Confederacy went to war with the Union to protect its failing economy. Their loss in the Civil War resulted in the utter destruction of the slave economy and what it produced.

The enormous profits from the slave plantations were in part put into the industry that developed in the north, providing lots of the much-needed starting capital. The US wouldn't be where they're at today without the exploitation of slaves.

> The enormous profits from the slave plantations were in part put into the industry that developed in the north

The slave plantations could barely sustain themselves, and they started to war because they wanted to protect their fragile economy from competition.

The free north industrialized and economically buried the slave south. The rebel army didn't even have shoes - they went barefoot. The slave economy couldn't even produce shoes.

Of course there was trade and investment going back and forth between the states, after all, it was one country. But the idea that the wealth of the north depended on "enormous profits" from slavery is just not credible.

There's a reason that slavery died out in the northern states by 1800 or so. It didn't pay. It didn't produce enormous profits. It was an economic loser.

Slavery has failed every time it went up against free labor. It just can't compete.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#142
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they invested it at all wisely, they should have made at least 5% over the past year. When I was at Dartmouth during the great recession a decade ago, they were gloating that they were nevertheless still making gains on the endowment, as the rest of the world crashed.

Last fiscal year MIT's investments earned a 14.3% profit or $1.86 in gains. The principle is now $14.8B. Agreed that 1.4% doesn't feel too crazy... http://news.mit.edu/2017/endowment-figures-2017-0908 Though curiously, MIT's own estimation of the new tax says it'll only cost $10M. If MIT really made $2.1B in one year on just investments, an extra $10M seems pretty manageable. (though this also seems far less than the…

> at least $10 million a year.

Presumably the tax is on future 2018 earnings, not 2017 earning.s

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#143
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can we get a citation for these claims? Otherwise it feels a lot like something one says while rocking themselves to sleep at night. The whole thesis of "Sapiens" is exactly the opposite of this, that "progress" has been mainly a way of making life harder. The idea rural farming is somehow more dangerous than moving to a city and working long hours in a factory seems worthy of some numbers. If you basically learn, "D…

I’d suggest that you perform even the most cursory level of research via Google. In the United States, agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupational categories. Fatality rate is 7x higher than all workers in private industry, and injury rate is 40% higher than all workers. Additionally, exposure to farm chemicals results in long term health effects. In China, safety standards are poor in agriculture and often…

In China, safety standards are poor in factories also and often unregulated, so no reliable statistics exist. Factories also have dangerous chemicals.

https://www.wired.com/2015/04/inside-chinese-factories/

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#144
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a moral vacuum, I agree. If I could flip a switch and permanently erase nuclear weapons from the world, I think i'd probably flip that switch. However, we don't exist in a world with switches like that. Any weapon the US doesn't develop out of some moral sensibility, another state like Russian or China will. Ceding military strength is not virtuous, it's naive. The choice isn't between "should these weapons exist…

Well, with WMDs we're past that point already. We have enough nukes to transform this world into hell in a few hours. Any advances in that area are of the nature that Putin mentioned recently, ones that no civilized nation would ever develop. There is an enormous conventional arms market though. These are guns, pistols etc. Their sole aim is to kill people, plain and simple. You could justify it by saying some of tho…

> but as a creator of the weapon you can't know that, you have no control on how it's used

That's not entirely true, especially if you are working for a military. You don't have total control over how it's used, but you can decide which government you work for.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#145
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not building weapons is not abdicating power. There are lots of other forms of power. Not to mention the US has plenty of weapons already. In addition, these weapons that are being built are there mostly to reduce the cost of war on our end, while increasing it to others, namely the civilian casualties of the Iraq war (yes, I will continue bringing that up. It doesn't matter if you're not advocating for it; it is a d…

> Not building weapons is not abdicating power Yes, it really is. If you are unarmed, you have no power. All power comes from the threat of violence. Any power not directly derived from that threat is derived from it indirectly. > In addition, these weapons that are being built are there mostly to reduce the cost of war on our end, while increasing it to others, namely the civilian casualties of the Iraq war (yes, I…

"If you are unarmed,"

And at that point, I no longer believe you are trying to engage in a serious discussion. The US is very, very far from "unarmed", so to use that as a justification shows that you're not taking this in good faith.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#146
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not building weapons is not abdicating power Yes, it really is. If you are unarmed, you have no power. All power comes from the threat of violence. Any power not directly derived from that threat is derived from it indirectly. > In addition, these weapons that are being built are there mostly to reduce the cost of war on our end, while increasing it to others, namely the civilian casualties of the Iraq war (yes, I…

"If you are unarmed," And at that point, I no longer believe you are trying to engage in a serious discussion. The US is very, very far from "unarmed", so to use that as a justification shows that you're not taking this in good faith.

Armedness is relative. This is painfully obvious. I await your response to the substance of my previous post.

Let me guess though, instead you're going to respond to this by saying "LOL YOU THINK THE US IS RELATIVELY UNARMED!?", completely ignoring the strategic positioning questions related to armaments, and any nuanced notion of military geopolitics. Tell me again which of us is non-serious.

Re: MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics

#147
post #68
post #25

I just figured MIT was making “easy” ethical statements. In general the examples that MIT spoke out about had no opposing parties, had no impact to MIT, and no repercussions. So MIT didn’t really have to care or make a sacrifice to speak out for Dreamers or against Charlottesville and whatnot. But for anything that requires sacrifice like MBS not giving an endowment, they suck it up. This is what sucks as wishy washy…

Can you elaborate on MIT's problems with sexual assault? That's news to me. If true, I'm pretty sad to hear about this. As an aging alum, MIT is still a place dear to my heart but over time it feels like the institute I remember is slipping away... (or I'm just becoming more aware of reality) (also not clear if you're referring to MIT or some other 'well respected engineering school').

I didn’t mean MIT. Sadly, I don’t live in Boston. It’s another school.
Post reply on HN