Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

web.eecs.umich.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 134 posts

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#71

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

jasode wrote: post #15

>, 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…

>> Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.

But that's entirely speculative and it's not really something you can know, or control. What you can know, what you can control, is whether you follow your principles or not. So it's really of no consequence what the government "might" do, or what they "can" do, etc. What is important is what you do.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#73

Post by ambicapter »

50656E6973 wrote: post #18
chrissnell wrote: post #3

"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence." That is misleading. The purpose of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd. Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.

>No US military leader wants to fight a war; that notion is absurd. It may be absurd but it's not unrealistic; there is historical precedent. Don't underestimate the power of ideology to override rationality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Operation Northwoods...didn't happen.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#74

Post by TeMPOraL »

astura wrote: post #60
watwut wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can refuse customer. You can not breach already written contract.

If nobody's buying what you're selling, then you have no business.

But then you're trading money for morality directly. For most businesses, customers are to some extent fungible, so you can afford to be a little picky if you're careful about the health of your company.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#75

Post by ikeyany »

amoitnga wrote: post #68
colonelxc wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."""

What is the point of sharing the article then? If I choose to behave in a certain manner but don't care how you behave, why would I tell you how I choose to behave?

The title is "Why don't I take military funding?" not "Why you shouldn't take military funding".

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#76

Post by gaius »

I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s literally no peaceful solution that any Western government could offer them.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#78

Post by Retra »

50656E6973 wrote: post #70
wildmusings wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's something to Kant's first formulation of the Categorical Imperative: 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.

>Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law. That seems entirely too tyrannical, imperialistic, and egotistical to be practical. Where does having freedom, humility, and an open mind fit into that maxim? I.e. being willing to accept that all humans (including ourselves) can be misguided, or that someone else could know what is better for them than…

If all humans can be misguided, any principle which accounts for it will be universal. If someone else could know better than you, you can also account for that in a way that other people could be equally well served by.

So there isn't anything contradictory or inhibitory there. Perhaps you are not seeing the generality implied by the term "universal?" The contrapositive here is to not act in a way that assumes other people are incapable of, unworthy of, or disadvantaged by following your example. There is nothing here that implies one can't be humble or liberal. To put it in less gentle terms, the point is that if you don't intend for other people to emulate you, then there is no point to your life in human society.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#79

Post by jasode »

peterlk wrote: post #48
jasode wrote: post #15

>, 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…

I think this is too cynical; to the point of being harmful. This argument resonates with me like the argument to not vote because your individual vote doesn't matter. You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive. We do what we can with the knowledge and resources we have. And if people are inspired to action (o…

>You say that you're not trying to dissuade people from their principles, but the implication of your argument is that Dr. Kuipers' approach is too naive.

No, you misunderstand. I don't think his approach is naive. My response was about consequences that take on a life of its own regardless of principled intentions. We have to separate the intentions vs consequences. Let me emphasize:

1) if one's moral principle is to not help the military, then one can stick with that principle

2) if one feels morally consistent by not accept funding from the military even if it causes some financial hardship or sacrifices, that's fine too

People have to do (or not do) things that keep them from losing sleep at night. If one has good intentions, then personal actions have to be consistent with that to maintain a clear conscience.

My entire comment has to do with consequences highlighted in this statement: "This was not what I wanted my life's work to support."

My point is that if the work has wide ranging applications, it _will_ support agendas you disagree with even if you don't take funding from the groups you oppose.

I was sensitive to that "life's work support" sentence because I'm working on a tool to let people anonymously match private data with others that have the same private data. The original motivation was letting people like-minded people discover each other without having public knowledge of it be used against them in denying future employment or denying health insurance.

However, one of my dilemmas was that it could also by used by the government and terrorist organizations. Even if I don't accept a check directly from the Department of Defense, it is inevitable they will (mis)-use the technology for purposes I don't agree with.

I think it's responsible for people to know that not accepting money from a group you oppose may not accomplish what you hope. If you think it's better to not know that, please explain why.

Re: Why don't I take military funding? (2004)

#80

Post by bassman9000 »

orf wrote: post #55
dwheeler wrote: post #27

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…

> The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. This seems to be a common sentiment in the USA. Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada? I think it's a bit reductionist to simply say "less army = we die". Things are more complex than…

Perhaps I'm naive, but you're saying that without your grossly overpowered military the USA would be overtaken by... Mexico? Canada?

This is textbook naive. China/Russia, to begin with.

Plus: there doesn't need to be a imminent invasion danger. Without the US protection of commercial sea routes, global economy would suffer a serious blow, which would affect Asian and South American countries way more than the US.

Post reply on HN