This is the nature of living in a free society (or at least what parts of one that are left). You don't get to dictate what other people do. If you release your code "free to the world", you have to open your idealistic eyes and realize that that might include things you aren't comfortable with. And to maintain consistency with the views that led you to opening your code, you have to be okay with it. That is the unfortunate conceit of most people who claim to be tolerant and open minded, they often mean "but only for things I approve of".
I want to write software that helps kill people.
41–50 of 59 posts
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#42I want to hack your software such that it always returns null. And then write software that identifies better distribution methods of food and water to famine and drought-stricken areas. Or maybe find the best areas to reseed of those that have been deforested.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#43That you have a computer at all is in large part due to the overwhelming demand for accurate ballistics data and codebreaking during WW2. It's very easy to play '6 (military) degrees of separation' and conclude that virtually any human activity supports the killing of people. Like baking at home? Your bakery hobby slightly reduces the demand for manufactured bread, thus making it more affordable to a heartless milita…
Technology is not neutral. Technologies are designed for discrete purposes. A hammer is designed for, among other things, hammering nails, not eating. And as it has been said, "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." A CIA drone is not a neutral technology. Kevin Kelly (a former editor of Wired) wrote a book called "What Technology Wants." He reminds us that technology does have a purpose,…
Technology is morally neutral. To use your own examples, a hammer could be used to build a house or commit a murder, and a drone could be used for aerial strikes or to monitor endangered animals for poaching activity (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/2013117135...). The initial use case for a technology to be developed will always be shaped by the morals and intent behind it, but other uses can always be found that are good or bad no matter what the technology is.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#44I wrote, but never published [1], a variation on the MIT license that has specific clauses stating that the software can only be used by parties who dont own/manufacture/trade firearms or ballistics. I never published it because I am not a lawyer, and it probably would have come across as an elaborate troll. If anyone is interested, I'll release it. [1] https://github.com/binarymax/Non-violent-License
It's your license, but owning firearms somehow makes you violent? Certainly sounds like an elaborate troll to me. Even if you could somehow iron out the kinks, the end result of your sort of action is a host of additional licenses that bar the various bête noires of their various authors, eventually leading to code that simply can't be used together because of conflicting moral obligations. I really don't want to hav…
Yes, all those points and more :)
While I don't consider everyone who owns a firearm to be violent - firearms are instruments of violence.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Who defines what is "good" and "evil"? Just take the example "pornography": in most Western countries pornography is accepted and not considered as "evil", but in many Islamic countries, pornography is considered sinful.
This concerned IBM, so Crockford sent them a document saying : "I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5138866
Makes sense for IBM, as they do have a history of that sort of thing [1].
[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/mar/29/humanities.highe...
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#46That you have a computer at all is in large part due to the overwhelming demand for accurate ballistics data and codebreaking during WW2. It's very easy to play '6 (military) degrees of separation' and conclude that virtually any human activity supports the killing of people. Like baking at home? Your bakery hobby slightly reduces the demand for manufactured bread, thus making it more affordable to a heartless milita…
Technology is not neutral. Technologies are designed for discrete purposes. A hammer is designed for, among other things, hammering nails, not eating. And as it has been said, "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." A CIA drone is not a neutral technology. Kevin Kelly (a former editor of Wired) wrote a book called "What Technology Wants." He reminds us that technology does have a purpose,…
The point is that what something was designed for is irrelevant compared to what it ends up being used for.
A steak knife is designed to cut meat during a pleasant, community event: eating dinner together. I can still use it to kill you.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#47This has nothing to do with open source. It's just a consequence of living in a warmongering superpower. Considering that a good percentage of America's GDP goes towards killing brown people overseas, just about every economic action you take as an American is contributing towards killing people. If you extend certain moral frameworks far enough, just living in America is an evil act.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plenty of people refuse to pay taxes for precisely this reason, or deliberately seek lower salaries that do not pay federal taxes. They believe, correctly, that macro-events are the culmination of micro-events, and that change begins on the personal level. It takes just a handful of dedicated people to start revolutions. Startups should know that.
Such people are hypocrites at best. Don't they use roads for their commute. Dont' their kids go to public schools. Don't they visit national parks etc. If they do all these things, aren't they ashamed of living off the money of the rest of the society that diligently pays taxes, and not contributing/pitching their share towards these common societal support structures?
Conscientious objection within a system is not hypocritical. That's how actual change begins. Movements generally arise through disobedience to immoral laws and through an appeal to the reason and compassion of others. It's unintellectual to presuppose the validity, morality, and consistency of the actions of others based on divergent false equivalencies.
There is currently only centralized, pooled, coercive funding. Certain institutions (e.g. war industries and monopolistic entities) are disproportionately backed by forced funding. Certain road contracting is also backed by forced funding. It's illogical to suggest that a conscientious objector to the war industry is therefore being hypocritical by using roads. They are, as it happens, trapped within a system where the only alternative would be to refrain from using roads, which itself is a highly oppressive suggestion and a predicament many people find worth conscientiously rejecting. The funding of roads and the funding of unethical industries are not mutually inclusive. These are the types of moral imperatives that most discriminatory and anti-humanitarian policies have imposed on people throughout history.
Wiser is the one who asks why and listens. Many things that appear hypocritical are, in actuality, the superficial understanding of a much deeper dilemma taking place.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#49This has nothing to do with open source. It's just a consequence of living in a warmongering superpower. Considering that a good percentage of America's GDP goes towards killing brown people overseas, just about every economic action you take as an American is contributing towards killing people. If you extend certain moral frameworks far enough, just living in America is an evil act.
Come on ... be real ... america spends roughly 600 B USD on military and related stuff. And they kill what 200-300K of civilians and combatants overseas per year top.
So this means that a brown person's life costs the government what 3 million USD per person to take. That is grossly inefficient. I am sure that if they just offer the dictators and warlords the money directly to kill their own populace they will manage to bring down the bill to 10K per person.
The goal of the US military is not to kill people (it is just not good enough) or defend the country (there is no real threat and terrorism is a joke) - it is to waste GDP in the best Orwellian way possible in which it excels.
Re: I want to write software that helps kill people.
#50That you have a computer at all is in large part due to the overwhelming demand for accurate ballistics data and codebreaking during WW2. It's very easy to play '6 (military) degrees of separation' and conclude that virtually any human activity supports the killing of people. Like baking at home? Your bakery hobby slightly reduces the demand for manufactured bread, thus making it more affordable to a heartless milita…
Technology is not neutral. Technologies are designed for discrete purposes. A hammer is designed for, among other things, hammering nails, not eating. And as it has been said, "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails." A CIA drone is not a neutral technology. Kevin Kelly (a former editor of Wired) wrote a book called "What Technology Wants." He reminds us that technology does have a purpose,…
Kind of splitting hairs, but a "CIA drone" is an application, not a technology. Drones as a technology are morally neutral.
You can politicize anything, but sometimes a video codec is just a video codec. As opposed to a "remote surveillance and murder technology".