eugene@utcsri.UUCP (Eugene Kligerman) (04/04/85)
My friend and I have been closely following the pro/anti SDI arguments
raging on this network. We do not think that this sort of discussion is
appropriate in can.general, but here goes...
Question: Is all military money 'dirty money'?
We have seen a lot of SDI arguments lately, both here, in the press, and
on TV. However, we would like to know, of all those people who have posted
anti-SDI articles, how many of them would accept money from the military at
all, never mind the SDI money.
We feel that people should not argue about SDI funding by saying that
SDI is dangerous/evil/destabilizing when in fact they believe that all
military money is dirty money.
SDI _is_ controversial, however, we do not think it should be used as a
smokescreen by people that believe any military money should not be taken.
These people should argue against military money in itself, and should
not limit the argument to pros and cons of SDI.
--
Malcolm MacPhail, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
UUCP: {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!malcolm
Eugene Kligerman, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
UUCP: {linus ihnp4 allegra floyd utzoo cornell decwrl uw-beaver}!utcsri!eugenegwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) (04/05/85)
I would accept military funding, but I wouldn't accept it for building SDI, or missiles of any kind (even though I would love to work on high tech control systems). The difference between these systems and other military equipment is the dehumanizing aspect. War is only unthinkable to those who have experienced war. What we are developing today is a race of people who can accept war without thinking because we don't have to actually pull a trigger. Maybe I'm only denying "progress", but I think that there would be alot less death involved (more violence, but less death and suffering) if we all had to lineup facing each other with our bare hands in order to wage war. I think for now we would be much better off with a strong army/navy than with an expensive SDI system. If the opposition wants to Nuke us out of existence, thats fine because we'll be dead and they'll be suffering. If we have a strong ground based defense the only thing the enemy can do is Nuke us which, I think/hope, is morally unthinkable on both sides. If Isreal relied on it's Bomb(s) the way the US does, we would have had our third, fourth and fifth nuclear weapons go off in anger by now. larry fast (Universty of Waterloo) broadcasting from exile PS I know my arguements are terribly rational or well thought out, but then again, is war rational?
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/07/85)
> ... War is only > unthinkable to those who have experienced war. What we are developing > today is a race of people who can accept war without thinking because > we don't have to actually pull a trigger. I hate to point this out, but this particular development occurred two millennia ago. Not since ancient Greece have the people voting for a war actually been the same ones who then had to fight it. Surely you don't think the people who actually pull the triggers have much of a say in whether war is declared? Not that it wouldn't be a good idea, mind you... -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/08/85)
Since noone else has done so yet, I'm going to go on record as unwilling to accept money from military sources for ANY kind of research. I think we are very fortunate in Canada that CS research in universities has not been funded much from military budgets, and view the situation in the States with unhappiness. Research aimed at reducing our dependence on weapons (for instance, the Build-Down idea mentioned in these columns) should be supported by a ministry with fewer vested interests in the status quo, if for no other reason. Julian Davies
robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) (04/08/85)
In article <7421@watrose.UUCP> gwhawkins@watrose.UUCP (gwhawkins) writes: >............ If we have a strong ground based defense the only >thing the enemy can do is Nuke us which, I think/hope, is morally >unthinkable on both sides. Or blackmail us into subjugation. At any rate, judging by the way the Soviet Government treats its citizens I tend to think one would be hard pressed to apply the term 'moral' to it. J.B. Robinson
padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell) (04/08/85)
In article <487@deepthot.UUCP> julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) writes: >Since noone else has done so yet, I'm going to go on record as >unwilling to accept money from military sources for ANY kind of >research. I think we are very fortunate in Canada that CS research in >universities has not been funded much from military budgets, and view >the situation in the States with unhappiness. > Research aimed at reducing our dependence on weapons (for instance, >the Build-Down idea mentioned in these columns) should be supported by >a ministry with fewer vested interests in the status quo, if for no >other reason. > Julian Davies Julian, I respect and admire your opinions, but I am afraid that this is one subject on which we disagree. Julian, if the DOD was to offer me money for rehabilitation, medical, or other non-death-dealing research, I wouldn't hesitate to grab it. If they were to offer me money to invesitgate anti-terrorism tactics, CBW, etc., I wouldn't hesitate to take it. Why? Because acting virtuous and trying to wash your hands of a dirty situation is only one way of dealing with it. I liken this type of attitude to some members of the "Right to Life", groups, which are not only against abortion, but also against birth control education in the primary/secondary school system, free birth control aid distribution, etc. While the analogy is not identical, I hope you see the point. Patrick ("Hmmm... The IRA is funding research into mail handling techniques.") Powell
clarke@utcs.UUCP (Clarke, Jim) (04/09/85)
In article <2255@wateng.UUCP> padpowell@wateng.UUCP (PAD Powell) writes: >In article <487@deepthot.UUCP> julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) writes: >>Since noone else has done so yet, I'm going to go on record as >>unwilling to accept money from military sources for ANY kind of >>research. > >Julian, I respect and admire your opinions, but I am afraid that >this is one subject on which we disagree. Julian, if the DOD was to >offer me money for rehabilitation, medical, or other non-death-dealing >research, I wouldn't hesitate to grab it. (The comments below are not intended as a reflection on either of the people quoted above. The quotations are only reminders of what's going on.) I believe this discussion started when someone proposed that we should be less willing to accept criticism of Star Wars specifically from people who disap- proved of taking military money generally. Here is a hypothetical debate that I intend to illustrate the logical status of this claim: A: We should repeal the law that imposes hanging as the penalty for throwing candy-wrappers into the street. [I told you it was hypothetical!] B: Ah, but you're against capital punishment in any form. I won't listen to any of your arguments. A: (faints, throws brick -- whatever you like) In other words, the fact that a debater would argue against taking military money under any circumstances, using more general (and presumably weaker) arguments, does not render suspect his/her using quite strong arguments that apply specifically to Star Wars. The suggestion that such comments *are* suspect verges on the ad hominem, and I'm surprised that certified computer scientists would use it :-) .... ("Smiley face" used to indicate that I have certainly been known to use arguments of similar quality myself!)
peter@yetti.UUCP (Runge) (04/10/85)
> Question: Is all military money 'dirty money'? > We have seen a lot of SDI arguments lately, both here, in the press, and > on TV. However, we would like to know, of all those people who have posted > anti-SDI articles, how many of them would accept money from the military at > all, never mind the SDI money. > . . . . > SDI _is_ controversial, however, we do not think it should be used as a > smokescreen by people that believe any military money should not be taken. > These people should argue against military money in itself, and should > not limit the argument to pros and cons of SDI. > Malcolm MacPhail, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto > Eugene Kligerman, Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto I'm one of those who think that military money is "dirty". That follows (for me) from my rejection of the aims of the military (-industrial) establishment. But I do not see why that prevents me from considering SDI on its own terms as a particularly dangerous form of militarism, and one which impinges on me directly in its impact on AI research, thereby affecting (infecting?) an intellectual community in which I have some interest. By the way, the use of the term "smokescreen" is curious to say the least. Suppose someone is against the use of torture, and we find out that he is also opposed to authoritarian regimes. Does his opposition of torture then become a 'smokescreen' for his political views? In general, if P implies Q, and I assert Q, am I somehow being deceptive if it turns out I also believe P?? Subject: Re: General research for/by the military. -- Peter H. Roosen-Runge, Department of Computer Science, York University Toronto (Downsview), Ontario * *Our* universe is not merely bankrupt; there remains * no dividend at all; it has not simply liquidated; it * is going clean out of existence ... * H. G. Wells, 1945
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/10/85)
> A: We should repeal the law that imposes hanging as the penalty for throwing > candy-wrappers into the street. [I told you it was hypothetical!] > B: Ah, but you're against capital punishment in any form. I won't listen to > any of your arguments. > A: (faints, throws brick -- whatever you like) It's not quite so ridiculous if you make it a closer analogy to the SDI discussion, by changing A's initial line to something like: A: The law that imposes hanging as the penalty for throwing candy-wrappers into the street is logically inconsistent and utterly unenforceable, and hence should be repealed. Note that he isn't just advocating a course of action, he is offering specific reasons to support his cause. Now consider a modified reply: B: Can you prove that the law is inconsistent and so forth, or are you just saying that because you want it repealed anyway? B may be impugning A's honesty, but he is not being silly. > In other words, the fact that a debater would argue against taking military > money under any circumstances, using more general (and presumably weaker) > arguments, does not render suspect his/her using quite strong arguments that > apply specifically to Star Wars. It does not render his arguments invalid, but it offers some reason for hesitating to accept them without detailed proof. There are people in the world who have such a bias against anything labelled "military" that they don't care about its merits and strengths; all they care about is whether it has weak points that they can use to attack it. Such people remain worth listening to, but skepticism is definitely in order. Of course, one also finds such people on the other side of the debate. The first thing they teach you in a good history course is that you must always consider the biases of your sources. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
clarke@utcs.UUCP (Clarke, Jim) (04/11/85)
In article <5452@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: >It does not render his arguments invalid, but it offers some reason for >hesitating to accept them without detailed proof. Does that mean (since I *would* accept military money in easily- imagined circumstances) that you will accept my arguments more readily than Julian <sorry, I forget the last name>'s? (Actually, of course, the previous parenthesis is there in exactly that hope. We're talking about a natural human tendency, but not a respectable one.)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/13/85)
> In article <5452@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes: > >It does not render his arguments invalid, but it offers some reason for > >hesitating to accept them without detailed proof. > Does that mean (since I *would* accept military money in easily- > imagined circumstances) that you will accept my arguments more > readily than Julian <sorry, I forget the last name>'s? > > (Actually, of course, the previous parenthesis is there in exactly > that hope. We're talking about a natural human tendency, but not > a respectable one.) Not quite so clear-cut. Unwillingness to take military money is not a definitive sign of the sort of bias I was talking about, and for that matter, willingness to take it is not a definitive sign of absence of said bias. But it is a strong hint, enough to modulate my degree of skepticism somewhat. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/16/85)
My own view in brief, of course, is that I personally wouldn't take military funding for any kind of research, not knowingly anyway, but I also think that the SDI idea is more than usually unfortunate for various reasons specific to that proposal. My reason for the more general stand is rooted in religious belief, and I recognise that this isn't something which can be 'proved' correct by purely rational arguments. (BTW, someone mentioned a lack of comment by laser physiciists, etc; there has ben a whole series of articles in _Scientific American_ over the last two years or so, discussing various aspects of defence policy and related technologies. October 84 has an article specifically about SDI, for what it's worth.) with best wishes, Julian Davies
andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (James H. Andrews) (04/16/85)
In article <5469@utzoo.UUCP> (among others) henry@utzoo.UUCP writes: >Not quite so clear-cut. Unwillingness to take military money is not >a definitive sign of the sort of bias I was talking about, and for that >matter, willingness to take it is not a definitive sign of absence of >said bias. But it is a strong hint, enough to modulate my degree of >skepticism somewhat. I have this vision of Mr. Spencer rocking back in his chair stroking his chin and making pronouncements like this. "How hypocritical", says he, "for people who wouldn't take military money anyway to organize opposition to SDI." Meanwhile, who's to say he doesn't support SDI just because he wants all the military money he can get? (-: --Jamie. :-)
henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) (04/17/85)
> I have this vision of Mr. Spencer rocking back in his chair stroking his chin > and making pronouncements like this. "How hypocritical", says he, "for people > who wouldn't take military money anyway to organize opposition to SDI." Please don't put words in my mouth. What I said was, "*some* of the people opposing SDI *may* be doing it out of reflex opposition to anything military, not because they really think it wouldn't work". Note that there would be nothing hypocritical about such people organizing opposition to SDI. What would be hypocritical would be lying about their motives to try to win converts to their cause. "Well, we know you don't share our emotional opposition to it, so we won't mention that; we'll just put together whatever flimsy justifications we can. Doesn't matter if they're true, so long as they convince you to support our Crusade." Unwillingness to take military money (even for unquestionably-beneficial work like medical research) is reason to wonder about someone's motives for opposing SDI, and about the reliability of his statements. Not cause to firmly disbelieve them, mind you, just cause for caution. If his biases are that strong, maybe they're affecting his judgement. "Do not stoop to tie your laces in your neighbor's melon patch." People who have obvious biases on the subject of anything military should expect to have their motives for opposing SDI questioned. > Meanwhile, who's to say he doesn't support SDI just because he wants all > the military money he can get? Military money? For computer facilities in a Zoology department? I wish. -- Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!henry
julian@deepthot.UUCP (Julian Davies) (04/17/85)
It seems implausible to me that there are researchers who are opposed to taking military money, but who aren't interested enough in the SDI proposal in particular to formulate a specific position with respect to it. It seems much more likely that the people who don't *think* much about SDI one way or another are those who are quite comfortable with taking money from wherever they can get it. But that may just be my biasses showing! Julian Davies