Google Employees Protest Work For the Pentagon

When I was in Iraq, the local Iraqis wanted to know why US forces were leaving. They understand that terrorists need killing, and realized they needed help still.

But keep on thinking that all the Middle East hates us.
 
SecretStash said:
Nice.
Smarter at certain things at least. But wisdom has more value. As Socrates said, "I know that I don't know." Often times it's the smart people who have a harder time understanding their own flaws and weaknesses. Also, a balanced life is more enjoyable in the long term.
Click to expand...

When someone objects to the fruits of their intellectual passions being used for evil, their wisdom is hardly in question.

The thing about smart people is that they see all the connections, to the horizon and beyond. Are you one of them?
 
Mut1ny said:
Using existing products is different the actively developing new products directly for military use.
Click to expand...

I understand where you're coming from, but I simply see the end result. A google product that the military uses.
 
Anybody remember the stories of the military working with walmart? yeah - so that they could get a better handle on transporting things efficiently, on time and when stuff was needed and not after. *shrugs* any company, tech or not, that does something exceedingly well will very likely be used somehow by the military. I don't think this is anything new :/

//and I think it goes the other way around too
 
lcpiper said:
Your foreign friend's terror isn't grounded in any real experience it sounds like, so it's a nebulous unreal thing, something that people who have too much time to think about sometimes waste time thinking about.

So this is how I think about it, and it's grounded in fact, not perceived fantasy.
Click to expand...

I use them as an example because that's exactly how I perceive this idiocy from Google employees ;)
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
When someone objects to the fruits of their intellectual passions being used for evil, their wisdom is hardly in question.

The thing about smart people is that they see all the connections, to the horizon and beyond. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...

Evil, there is a problem with this right from the start.

Why don't you define evil for us in the context of this discussion and we can start from there.


or


We can skip that and jump straight to the punch line.

A weapon system is not evil, tools used to analyze information or map or track potential targets, or even select them for destruction, are not evil. If evil exists at all, it exists in men's hearts and is manifest in their actions. Those that oppose evil are not themselves evil.

Now take a moment and explore all of the horizon you wish, then get back to me on this.
 
lcpiper said:
Evil, there is a problem with this right from the start.

Why don't you define evil for us in the context of this discussion and we can start from there.


or


We can skip that and jump straight to the punch line.

A weapon system is not evil, tools used to analyze information or map or track potential targets, or even select them for destruction, are not evil. If evil exists at all, it exists in men's hearts and is manifest in their actions. Those that oppose evil are not themselves evil.

Now take a moment and explore all of the horizon you wish, then get back to me on this.
Click to expand...
Something something road to hell and good intentions something something.
I don't do the killing, i just facilitate it greatly make it more efficient, and give it a veneer of rightgeousness, by arguing we care about target selection... because you can kill whatever, but you are a-okay since you selected targets..you know that is not evil /s. The only evil ones are the ones we kill anyway.. shit! Obviously!/s
 
Last edited:
Uvaman2 said:
Something something road to hell and good intentions something something.
I don't do the killing, i just facilitate it greatly make it more efficient, and give it a veneer of rightgeousness, by arguing we care about target selection... because you can kill whatever, but you are a-okay since you selected targets..you know that is not evil. The only evil ones are the ones we kill anyway.. shit! Obviously!
Click to expand...


Ahh, so you either object because all killing is evil, or is it religious, Thou Shalt Not? Please speak plain sir.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Sorry i fixed the post a bit.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing a difference

EDITED:

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTlkflUrV4TRP_cfHmRmQDgX6z8Tyjg8wc9ATY5XIQM_6WriR9h.jpg


foto_holocausto.jpg


DIV-lswWAAA3fsD.jpg


DakSonMassacre2.jpg



or is it more like these:

bomb-blast.jpg


image.jpg


I hope that these the evil you are talking about?
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Evil, there is a problem with this right from the start.

Why don't you define evil for us in the context of this discussion and we can start from there.


or


We can skip that and jump straight to the punch line.
Click to expand...

Or how about we don't? Funny how you throw this out as some sort of challenge but then decide that perhaps it's too easy, or that my reply would eclipse your meagre simplification of the matter.

A weapon system is not evil, tools used to analyze information or map or track potential targets, or even select them for destruction, are not evil. If evil exists at all, it exists in men's hearts and is manifest in their actions. Those that oppose evil are not themselves evil.

Now take a moment and explore all of the horizon you wish, then get back to me on this.
Click to expand...

And that's your definition of evil: it exists in the minds of men.

Well, this pithy truism of yours just blows me away. Whatever was I thinking?

Firstly, your strawman gains no traction - I never equivocated between tools and minds, that dichotomy is yours alone.

Secondly - I also never stated that the minds who use these tools are necessarily evil. A German WW2 soldier, ferinstance, might have believed that he was acting nobly in the defence of the Fatherland. That however is not to say that the end result is not evil, or that he did not act at the behest of evil men exploiting his naiveté. Do you think Goebbels ever fired a rifle in the trenches? Did Goebbels even need to ever touch a weapon? No.

Thirdly - has it ever occurred to you that the mere access to the weapons of war breeds evil in the minds of men? Or is it some zero sum game to you where people are cast in stone from the get go? Do you think men have weapons because they're evil, or are they evil because they have weapons? Neither option tells the whole story, but these Google protesters aren't seeing it in the former light, despite the attempts by you and others to paint their objection with that brush.

Lo! What's that I see on the horizon? Oh, it's only you disappearing into the sunset on the one-trick pony you rode in on.
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
When someone objects to the fruits of their intellectual passions being used for evil, their wisdom is hardly in question.

The thing about smart people is that they see all the connections, to the horizon and beyond. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...
The reality is that no one comes close to making all the connections. Mozart was a true musical genius, yet lesser musicians make connections Mozart never conceived. Mathematical savants see amazing connections with clarity, but do they see everything? People with disorders like ADHD are some of the most creative people, they find new connections others don't think of because they can't make connections average people make. Google employees are smart networkers and software engineers, but does that necessarily follow that they all would make great civil engineers? Or doctors? These people aren't gods.

You have somewhat of a point about convictions. But not all convictions are equal. Especially when this tech is meant to reduce collateral damage, and move inevitable fighting further away from the days of carpet bombing.
 
alamox said:
drone strike are never accurate, they kill dozens for 1 target, drone strikes have over 90% colateral, the fact that they are still practically the only weapon US uses is an aberation, and all it does is fuel hate, that US citizens will pay with their lives, and now google employees get close to the top , i don't know if it was a good idea to make the letter public, unless the project itself was already made public, because i didn't know about it.
Click to expand...


Sources?

Drone strikes are very accurate. With limited collateral damage when intel and targeting information is correct.

Why do you think ISIS is no longer a thing? Because we decapited the fuck out of it with drone strikes.

Far as I am concerned, drone strikes are fucking awesome. Anything that lets us run these vermin down and end them is fine by me.
 
nutzo said:
As opposed to random shelling, cluster bombs, daisy cutters or nukes?

The US makes more of an effort to avoid collateral damage than any country in history.
Click to expand...


You forgot the 70 dead people the Syrians, and by extension their Russian backers gassed to death this week. Yup, I think hellfire missiles and SDB’s are a bit more selective than poison gas
 
Last edited:
SecretStash said:
You have somewhat of a point about convictions. But not all convictions are equal. Especially when this tech is meant to reduce collateral damage, and move inevitable fighting further away from the days of carpet bombing.
Click to expand...

The validity of the protester's objections are not for you to judge, especially when specific special pleas about how their work could have a positive impact are used as arguments.

What's wrong with this picture when the horrors of war are used as a whataboutist backstop to validate the notion that anybody's work is up for grabs by militaries?

If military technology can be used for good against this backstop of horror, or at least reduce the scope thereof, why then doesn't everybody share their weapon tech with all and sundry?

The answer is that that is obviously not how how it works, and that the objection is far more nuanced than mere ideas about how to make this or that weapon better or safer.

The objection goes to the heart of the idea that war is NOT an inevitable fact of life; that people are moral agents who can (and do) act in the best interests of everybody despite the spectre of nationalism or religious chauvinism being hung out over everyone's head.

Remember, Google is a cosmopolitan multinational and not everyone there believes in US primacy or even that it would be a good thing, and I sympathise with that view.

About the worst you could say is that the protest is idealistic and naive, but when you think about it, the fact that this charge could be levelled is all the more reason to protest in the first place since war should not be a normative fact of life the way it arguably is now.
 
lcpiper said:
I would like to add something to this, many times people who have no real idea what modern warfare is like have inaccurate ideas in their heads. Actual war footage rarely shows the full scope of how a Military like ours actually prosecutes conventional warfare. A combined arms live fire exercise can be an eye opener.



Now this one is very old, but it was the best I found where the camera spends enough time focused on the target of the attack and not just showing pictures of weapons firing. Bombers, fighter bombers, attack helicopters and other gunships, artillery and rocket launcher systems, tanks and infantry fighting vehicles, all alternate and take turns not only attacking the actual target, but even suspected enemy positions in the area around or beyond the target. Combined arms warfare is not surgical by any means, it's a brutal hammer.

Understand that if civilians are unable to leave areas where the enemy is located, it's going to be very hard on them, survival is not likely.

When you say that you don't want drone strikes, this is the alternative, not Harry Krishna love and tenderness.

Again, I am not arguing, I believe you yourself understand this. I am adding this to your post to give others a better idea of the way things are.

They may think these things didn't happen in Iraq and Afghanistan but they did. The actual warfare we conducted in the early years were like this. Latter, the wars were declared over and the mission transitioned to a nation building support and development mission. The war on terror continued as it does today.

I just think people need to have a realistic view of what they are asking for on this subject.
Click to expand...



Dude, you are my hero! My unit is in that video, 3rd Battalion, 35th Armored regiment, 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division.

I was actually there when that video was shot! I have some still photos of that CALFEX, it was an amazing sight.


Wow that brings back memories....

Edit: oops! different unit from mine, and I wasn’t present for that particular CALFEX, but I was there that year awesome video.
 
Last edited:
Let them protest if they like. Google will not stop because of it. If they don't want to work on government projects that might possibly lead to casualties, they picked the wrong company to work for, and for that matter, the wrong line of work.
Nothing drives technology quite like humanities seemingly never ending quest to find new and better ways of killing each other. It almost seems a truism that if you invent a new piece of technology, someone, somewhere, will invent a way to kill using it.
 
motomonkey said:
Sources?

Drone strikes are very accurate. With limited collateral damage when intel and targeting information is correct.

Why do you think ISIS is no longer a thing? Because we decapited the fuck out of it with drone strikes.

Far as I am concerned, drone strikes are fucking awesome. Anything that lets us run these vermin down and end them is fine by me.
Click to expand...

How do you think ISIS got started? You seem to have this idea that societies develop in a bubble disconnected from the gravitas of history.

The entire middle eastern story is one punctuated by military interference and bombfuckery by greater military powers, not greater moral powers.
 
Love it, to package it as a tool to reduce collateral damage, such bull.. It is a tool to facilitate target selection. Big ass difference.
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
How do you think ISIS got started? You seem to have this idea that societies develop in a bubble disconnected from the gravitas of history.

The entire middle eastern story is one punctuated by military interference and bombfuckery by greater military powers, not greater moral powers.
Click to expand...

Not exactly sure where you get the idea I’m unfamiliar with how ISIS was established (Leftover Ba’ath party members with a grudge, basically, who conveniently “got religion”) but It’s irrelevant, isn’t it? drones are a useful tool for dealing with them, and I’m ok with that.
 
Uvaman2 said:
Love it, to package it as a tool to reduce collateral damage, such bull.. It is a tool to facilitate target selection. Big ass difference.
Click to expand...
Facilitating target selection reduces collateral damage. The sooner the target is eliminated, the sooner they stop blowing shit up to get to that target. Because they will continue to blow shit up until they get their target.
 
Gorankar said:
Facilitating target selection reduces collateral damage. The sooner the target is eliminated, the sooner they stop blowing shit up to get to that target. Because they will continue to blow shit up until they get their target.
Click to expand...
Nope it increases targets.
 
Gorankar said:
Facilitating target selection reduces collateral damage. The sooner the target is eliminated, the sooner they stop blowing shit up to get to that target. Because they will continue to blow shit up until they get their target.
Click to expand...
There's going to be unlimited targets, because that's what a significant portion of our economy depends on. If there are no targets, thus no reason for us to be there, that costs the defense industry billions of dollars until we can find a new enemy.
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
The objection goes to the heart of the idea that war is NOT an inevitable fact of life; that people are moral agents who can (and do) act in the best interests of everybody despite the spectre of nationalism or religious chauvinism being hung out over everyone's head.
Click to expand...

Only the dead have seen the end of war.

If your argument is one that they share, then both you and they are incredibly naive on the subject of human nature and humanity itself.
 
tetris42 said:
There's going to be unlimited targets, because that's what a significant portion of our economy depends on. If there are no targets, thus no reason for us to be there, that costs the defense industry billions of dollars until we can find a new enemy.
Click to expand...
Yes, there will always be enemies to kill. Such is life. Tech to reduce collateral damage and be more effective in killing actual targets seems like a decent enough thing for someone grounded in reality to work on. The idea that the killing will stop if Google employees protest against working on that project is, well, it is beyond naive, and well off into fantasy land. There is no outcome where the killing stops, until our species finally dies off. It is certainly their right to protest this reality they don't like. I just don't see it having any effect. If these people on this protest letter truly have a conscientious objection to creating technology that will be used in warfare, they are working in the wrong industry. Technology will find itself used in warfare. From zippers and velcro, to AI and imaging, to tanks and bombs, it will be used for war.

In other words, "LOL, we hear you, now back to work or find another job your conscience can live with."
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
The validity of the protester's objections are not for you to judge, especially when specific special pleas about how their work could have a positive impact are used as arguments.

What's wrong with this picture when the horrors of war are used as a whataboutist backstop to validate the notion that anybody's work is up for grabs by militaries?

If military technology can be used for good against this backstop of horror, or at least reduce the scope thereof, why then doesn't everybody share their weapon tech with all and sundry?

The answer is that that is obviously not how how it works, and that the objection is far more nuanced than mere ideas about how to make this or that weapon better or safer.

The objection goes to the heart of the idea that war is NOT an inevitable fact of life; that people are moral agents who can (and do) act in the best interests of everybody despite the spectre of nationalism or religious chauvinism being hung out over everyone's head.

Remember, Google is a cosmopolitan multinational and not everyone there believes in US primacy or even that it would be a good thing, and I sympathise with that view.

About the worst you could say is that the protest is idealistic and naive, but when you think about it, the fact that this charge could be levelled is all the more reason to protest in the first place since war should not be a normative fact of life the way it arguably is now.
Click to expand...
Weapons can increase military capability AND decrease collateral damage, hence laser guided bombs. So yes it's nuanced, but no, we won't share and for good reason.

As for weapons research, it's important to continue, otherwise the likes of China will catch up. In fact there is concern they may overtake us when it comes to AI. We can't lay out weapons down now, because they world doesnt play nice because the world is full of moral agents who don't live up to their own moral standards. War will always happen until people will always come to the conclusion that there is nothing to gain by starting one. So far out enemies aren't there yet.
 
Gottfried Leibnizzle said:
Or how about we don't? Funny how you throw this out as some sort of challenge but then decide that perhaps it's too easy, or that my reply would eclipse your meagre simplification of the matter.



And that's your definition of evil: it exists in the minds of men.

Well, this pithy truism of yours just blows me away. Whatever was I thinking?

Firstly, your strawman gains no traction - I never equivocated between tools and minds, that dichotomy is yours alone.

Secondly - I also never stated that the minds who use these tools are necessarily evil. A German WW2 soldier, ferinstance, might have believed that he was acting nobly in the defence of the Fatherland. That however is not to say that the end result is not evil, or that he did not act at the behest of evil men exploiting his naiveté. Do you think Goebbels ever fired a rifle in the trenches? Did Goebbels even need to ever touch a weapon? No.

Thirdly - has it ever occurred to you that the mere access to the weapons of war breeds evil in the minds of men? Or is it some zero sum game to you where people are cast in stone from the get go? Do you think men have weapons because they're evil, or are they evil because they have weapons? Neither option tells the whole story, but these Google protesters aren't seeing it in the former light, despite the attempts by you and others to paint their objection with that brush.

Lo! What's that I see on the horizon? Oh, it's only you disappearing into the sunset on the one-trick pony you rode in on.
Click to expand...

You point out the strawman and we'll deal with that.

Seems I have to point out what you said because you wish to explore all that you didn't say instead.

When someone objects to the fruits of their intellectual passions being used for evil, their wisdom is hardly in question.

The thing about smart people is that they see all the connections, to the horizon and beyond. Are you one of them?
Click to expand...

Are you not claiming that using Google's AI products for the purpose of conducting combat operations is essentially an evil purpose? And furthermore, that any objection to the same is inherently and obviously wise?

And as an aside, smart people see "all the connections" even to things they have no actually experience or knowledge of? Sort of like staying at a Holiday Inn Express huh?

This guy, he's really smart so he intuitively sees all the connections to ..... everything, even shit he's doesn't know anything about ...... but man he really can see those connections.

You want to drag up Goebbels to prove some point about naive soldiers doing the bidding of evil men who have never known combat, but Hitler was a Corporal in WW1 and saw action. In fact, while many Nazi officials were too young to have seen combat in WW1 and were not recruited from "the ranks" out of WW2, there are many others that did see distinguished service in WW1 and knew all about the "business end" of a rifle.

So since you think that's it's ridiculous to think that evil so something that is in the minds of evil men, then please unlighted me, where does evil exist? Is evil in a ring? strange geometric symbols or perverse statues, maybe it's in the code for Google's AI?

If evil isn't in the hearts and minds of men, then where the hell is it?

You want to know about the relationship between evil and weapons? There is no relationship short of men, once possessed of evil intent, may use a weapon to see that intent realized. A missile, a tank, a flamethrower, a pistol, a knife, a baseball bat ...... Kane slew his brother Able with a rock, if you believe that text as historically accurate. The implement really has little to do with it. Possession of the implement is no different, as a man can slay another with his hands alone. And the killing can be done with evil intent or it can be solely defensive saving one's own life or another's.

Still on my horse, lets see where you want to take this next.
 
motomonkey said:
Dude, you are my hero! My unit is in that video, 3rd Battalion, 35th Armored regiment, 3rd Brigade of the 1st Armored Division.

I was actually there when that video was shot! I have some still photos of that CALFEX, it was an amazing sight.


Wow that brings back memories....

Edit: oops! different unit from mine, and I wasn’t present for that particular CALFEX, but I was there that year awesome video.
Click to expand...

I watched one, maybe this one, not sure, but the video does not do the event justice. The intensity of the attack is ...... well you just have to be there. Once the attack begins, someone or something is constantly hammering the target area and I can't imagine an observer not thinking "I'm glad I'm not in the middle of that".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top