41–50 of 134 posts
>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support. But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes? The government could find a…
>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support. But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes? The government could find a…
Isn’t that what the space program was? “We’re going reach for the heavens and put a man on the moon [necessitating technology that can also drop a nuke anywhere on earth]!”
> "I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. "
Western free society is a hierarchical entity, much like a tech stack. While in tech, the lowest foundation layer is hardware, it is "security" for civil society. The fact is that the rest of society completely collapses if people, companies, and civil structure cease to be secure. History, statistics & a scientific analysis of conflict provides strong evidence for the reliance on military might for building layers of civilization over it.
It is disingenuous to state, as the author has, that this is fully and completely achievable without a military, or use of force. It is also appalling, that while the author's day job is rooted in evidence, science & peer-review, those principles have been ignored in deriving his "truths" about civil society.
What we should be concerned about is the misuse of military power. The way the US is setup, military/executive branch are a lot more accountable to it's citizens than other structures of governance. It allows law-makers (who represent the electorate) to tweak or check abuse and while this may NOT be perfect, it certainly forms the foundation for betterment.
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society…
I read it differently. They are not advocating against the military, just that they will not participate. They are not trying to say that all CS (or any field) should wholly shun military work, just that they have. Choice quote: """Do you try to keep others from taking military funding? No. Mine is an individual testimony, and each person makes an individual decision about how they will spend their life's work."""
Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.
Edit: to address a common confusion: this has nothing to do with imposing a rule on others. This formulation only says that you ought to act in conformance with rules that you would want all others to act by as well.
Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding: > One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.
But he would probably be able to support more grad students, that may not otherwise be able to be in grad school, if he took the military funding.
But if not, there is an amount of unethical, unacceptable funding which trumps the good of the grad students it provides for.
Couldn’t some other professor take the available funding, and support those additional students?
>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support. But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes? The government could find a…
If the military is creating organizations to "launder" money to make it look like it's not going to the military, then it seems to me that Dr. Kuipers has been successful in shifting the culture around military research. And that is no small feat. It may also bring about constructive conversations about the balance between hard power and soft power in international (and human) relationships.
Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding: > One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.
Or any funding of any sort from any source, public or private, for that matter. It's a total garbage argument; anyone can require something you disagree with as a condition for continuation of funding, the military is not special in this regard. It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with." Ridiculous.
For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of their research, or their bosses.
Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their diets.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or any funding of any sort from any source, public or private, for that matter. It's a total garbage argument; anyone can require something you disagree with as a condition for continuation of funding, the military is not special in this regard. It's basically akin to saying "don't get a job because if you do then your boss might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with." Ridiculous.
I don’t think it’s ridiculous. I think it simply says that people with stringent ethics cannot serve others and cede control. They may bootstrap their own businesses, become their own bosses, or find another way to operate independently. For some, control is relinquished to VCs. For others, it is the funders of their research, or their bosses. Most people are not as picky about their ethics as they are about their di…
"don't start a business because if you do then your customers might eventually ask you to do something (that's legal) that you disagree with."
Except his argument is even sillier, because he's actually arguing that "might eventually" is actually "inevitably." That it's just inevitable that DARPA funded cancer research naturally turns into building cruise missiles.