That 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 military machine. And so on.
If you're not actively and directly involved in military activities, there's little that you can do about the knock-on effects of whatever it is that you're engaged in; and even if you can quantify the human cost of your activities, it needs to be offset against the positive externalities. For example, the same software that allows Palantir to identify 'bad guys' who are potential targets for military attack is equally capable of identifying peacemakers or other constructive individuals who are good candidates for receiving financial aid or suchlike.
Technology itself is neutral. Don't use it as a stick to beat yourself over the imperfect state of the world.
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, does influence human behavior, and may in fact be changing human nature.
Kudos to the OP for taking a reflective, responsible, and principled stance. We should all be so discriminating.
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.
I don't agree with you or Kevin Kelly. A hammer might be designed for hammering nails, but you can beat someone to death with a hammer or use it to build a house. A drone that is used to kill people can easily be turned to other purposes; consider the fact that satellite photography was once used primarily for espionage and military target identification, but has since become an invaluable tool for everything from mapping services to environmental observation. We wouldn't have been able to properly observe things like deforestation in the Amazon, the ozone hole, or shifting temperature gradients without this military-originated technology.
Kelly has interesting points to make about path-dependency, but I don't share his teleological viewpoint, though having said that I've only read extracts and essays by him rather than the full book.
Comments
That 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 military machine. And so on.
If you're not actively and directly involved in military activities, there's little that you can do about the knock-on effects of whatever it is that you're engaged in; and even if you can quantify the human cost of your activities, it needs to be offset against the positive externalities. For example, the same software that allows Palantir to identify 'bad guys' who are potential targets for military attack is equally capable of identifying peacemakers or other constructive individuals who are good candidates for receiving financial aid or suchlike.
Technology itself is neutral. Don't use it as a stick to beat yourself over the imperfect state of the world.
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, does influence human behavior, and may in fact be changing human nature.
Kudos to the OP for taking a reflective, responsible, and principled stance. We should all be so discriminating.
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.
I don't agree with you or Kevin Kelly. A hammer might be designed for hammering nails, but you can beat someone to death with a hammer or use it to build a house. A drone that is used to kill people can easily be turned to other purposes; consider the fact that satellite photography was once used primarily for espionage and military target identification, but has since become an invaluable tool for everything from mapping services to environmental observation. We wouldn't have been able to properly observe things like deforestation in the Amazon, the ozone hole, or shifting temperature gradients without this military-originated technology.
Kelly has interesting points to make about path-dependency, but I don't share his teleological viewpoint, though having said that I've only read extracts and essays by him rather than the full book.
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.
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".