root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (05/03/85)
> [David Harwood] > I would say that the inherent danger in technology, the fruit > of knowledge, is that its power is inherently corrupting, in the sense > that it makes existent, out of possibility, what is a grave temptation > for the evil in our nature. As Jesus said, it is better to cast away > those things which would tempt you to self-destruction. I think it inaccurate to say that technology is inherently corrupting. There is nothing in technology that biases it towards the destruction or corruption of man. Rather it is man who is capable of performing both good and evil works. Technology has been given this reputation as the harvenger of death because it is through technology that man most vividly asserts his needs for power. The proliferation of weaponry should be thought of more as a gauge of man's attitude. Do you subscribe to the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutly? I don't. In the hands of some people, power becomes a corrupter. In the hands of others it becomes an important life-giving tool. That's why we must all recognize and understand the tools at our disposal and how to responsibly use them. The tone of your voice implies in some ways that we should throw our technology away entirely. This seems contradictory to your earlier view that technology can be used to ease the suffering of mankind. I think if one takes a closer look at what Jesus said you will find that he is telling us to cast off that which has already condemned us. In other words, pluck out the eye that has caused you to sin, as opposed to plucking out the eye which might potentially sin. Giving up technology wholesale is not the asnwer ... that's like saying we should give up life altogether because it causes us to sin or suffer. No, like life itself we must learn what it means to use technology for the betterment of man. I think that what Jesus is saying here is that sin can grow to consume everything in life if you let it... just as a gangronous limb can spread corruption to the rest of the body. The moral is not simply that we must cast away evil.. that's obvious. The moral here is that we must sometimes endure a loss for our overall good. > I have said before that I can imagine... And, as I have said before... You seem to enjoy starting each paragraph with the phrase "as I have said before." This is a redundant and useless phrase that is becoming rather irritating to listen to. Just for grins I counted the number of times you used the word self-serving. Six times. Dave, for the sake of those reading your articles please try to be less verbose. It's as if you were trying to pound your ideas home by repeating them again and again and again and... > I am sometimes partly employed under military contracts, at a > university research center where I have considerable freedom to choose > what I do, and I refuse to work on projects which have direct military > application. (I've been employed under the Defense Mapping Agency, also > National Bureau of Standards, NASA, etc; as an example of something I > don't work on -- the Army robot vehicle project.) Its called the ALV (Autonomous Land Vehicle). Unfortunately, when you live in the Washington area, many of the best computer-related jobs are to be found with defense contractors. Yes, an admirable statement, but there's no escaping the evil military industrial complex empire. If you pay taxes, then you support defense. Choosing to not sell your time to a defense contractor is a good way to keep high-tech out of killing people, if you really believe that your effort is really going to kill any more people than would be killed by the weaponry we already have in place. I don't think that just saying, "I will not aid the military defense complex" is enough. It's a nice statement, but not entirly realistic. Sometimes I wish that people would band together (using electronic bulletin boards, hint hint) to boycott certain corporations (McDonalds, Roy Rogers, IBM etc) and force the true will of the people on the world. Communications of this sort could be a powerful tool for social change... and education. I'm afraid that the average intelligence of the population simply isn't up to it though. > As I said already... Not again..... > There is not one example of technological innovation in warfare > that has not been abused. That's a contrived statement. What is your definition of "abuse." What is your definition of of "innovation in warfare." Since you apparently consider warfare to be immoral to begin with, you're not really saying much. I suppose we might conclude that a particular brand of screw is an abomination because it was a component in an "innovative weapons system." Big deal. On the other hand, one can cite examples of technological innovations in warfare that actually have actually benefited mankind, albeit indirectly. The same is true of the space program (which has also been used to aid defense). So let's refrain from putting labels on things and look at the truth of the situation. > Besides this, the very possesion of weapons of mass destruction is a > crime against humanity. As if the possession of conventional weapons were somehow acceptable? The possession of such weapons is not a crime against humanity. Their USE is a crime against humanity. Again you're putting labels on things. > If there were the example of charitableness among the nations, the > preference of the tyranny of Iran and South Africa would be > inconceivable. These tyrants would never gain power, or hold it for > more than a generation. Sure they would. They would do so through military means. Through contrived political ideologies. Through methods that make your charity look weak by comparison. Through methods that made the SS and certain corrupt popes quite infamous. > It has been said, by Neibuhr I believe, that WW II proves the > ineffectuality of pacifism. I don't think so. The fact is that pacifist > resistance was generally not even attempted in this war (except in one > case where it was fairly successful). If it had been, by the opponents > of the early Nazis, certainly the incipient evil would have become > publicly known for what it was, and perhaps Hitler would have failed to > gain support. Quick! Don your flameproof suit, because you're going to be flamed out of existance for this one! The result of pacifistic behavior in WW II spelled out the deaths of millions of Poles, Gypsys, Jews and other unacceptable social and ethnic influences.... all hearded into concentration camps and destroyed like deseased cattle. This sort of null resistance is exactly what the war-gods want. Docility. Had there been greater pacifism in this country and others, Hitler surely would have captured the world. Do you still claim that the barbarians and emporers of the world were conquored by the Gospels and not the sword? > We all have to live with our own conscience, but this does not mean > that others should not speak out against the dangerous evil we > foresee. After all, it is their children and grandchildren who will be > destroyed in this 'national defense'. My, such pessimism. Perhaps man will also find the wisdom to NOT use such weapons. As I recall you had said that this is one reason why there is evil in the world... for man to struggle against it and learn from the experience. The arms race is no different. This time we are talking about the survival of all living things. > Nevertheless, even this so-called 'deterrence' will also inevitably > fail, in an increasingly unjust, militant, and politically unstable > world. I'm sure that the MAD doctrine WILL fail... but it needn't climax in a nuclear orgy. Man may yet find the wisdom to secure his own survival.... -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "Markland needs women!"