MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics(thetech.com)
thetech.com
MIT's student newspaper criticizes MIT's convenience-based ethics
https://thetech.com/2018/04/05/editorial-mit-selective-moralizing
142 comments
If it makes MIT feel better, I don't think "ethics" when I think of MIT. I think technological leadership and excellence, but definitely not ethics. For starters, they have plenty of collaborations with the military (e.g., MIT Lincoln Labs; not saying that can't be ethical... but it usually means someone's going to die). Nothing to be ashamed of. Somebody's gotta do it...
What's unethical about collaborating with the military? We don't exist in a vacuum. American military hegemony has been an extremely powerful stabilizing force, post-WWII. This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish.
Not to overly pick on your comment, since you did say that it can be ethical, of course. But i've seen this sentiment that military work is unethical echo'd a bunch of times here lately, and I think it's an incredibly naive perspective.
Not to overly pick on your comment, since you did say that it can be ethical, of course. But i've seen this sentiment that military work is unethical echo'd a bunch of times here lately, and I think it's an incredibly naive perspective.
I think as human consciousness, morality, and our understanding of history have evolved, the question we now ask is “Stability for whom?” Certainly not for Latin America during the Cold War, for example.
Those who oppose collaborating with the military do so because “America military hegemony” has been used for all kinds of horrors, including recent events like the Iraq War. There’s nothing naive about not wanting to be party to at least half a million civilian casualties and the destabilization of the Middle East.
You can make some Real Politik argument about the ends justifying the means, if that’s what you truly believe, but you’ll have to do so more explicitly and account for things like Vietnam and the Iraq War. The reductive abstraction of “stability” you pose know longer holds the same kind of sway it once did among most people.
Those who oppose collaborating with the military do so because “America military hegemony” has been used for all kinds of horrors, including recent events like the Iraq War. There’s nothing naive about not wanting to be party to at least half a million civilian casualties and the destabilization of the Middle East.
You can make some Real Politik argument about the ends justifying the means, if that’s what you truly believe, but you’ll have to do so more explicitly and account for things like Vietnam and the Iraq War. The reductive abstraction of “stability” you pose know longer holds the same kind of sway it once did among most people.
The fact that violence has happened does not mean that it isn't substantially less than it was. The decrease in rates of violence in modern history is profound, and has been discussed at length, here's a chart:
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6
Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence.
Does that mean the US military has made no mistakes? No, of course not. It's made plenty. But the world is a real place where decisions are made by people, and order is imposed by force. Someone is going to impose it. Surveying the landscape of world powers today, i'll take the US over anyone else, any and every day. And that is the only decision that matters. Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.
https://ourworldindata.org/slides/war-and-violence/#/6
Do you see how it goes down since 1950? The fact that the US has been involved in conflicts is not evidence that the US, on balance, creates more violence.
Does that mean the US military has made no mistakes? No, of course not. It's made plenty. But the world is a real place where decisions are made by people, and order is imposed by force. Someone is going to impose it. Surveying the landscape of world powers today, i'll take the US over anyone else, any and every day. And that is the only decision that matters. Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.
>Talking about civilian deaths de-contextualized from the reality of the alternatives is exactly what I mean by 'naive'.
The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe.
>And that is the only decision that matters.
You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did, because a lot of people embrace a kind of unquestioning idea of authority as “good,” to which you seem to subscribe.
>And that is the only decision that matters.
You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
> The alternative to the Iraq War was not having the Iraq War, which by any sane account was the correct course of action. Half a million people didn’t half to die, but they did
You'll get no disagreement from me there. Like I said, and you seem to want to ignore, the US has done bad things. The question isn't "has this entity ever done anything wrong", the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best?
> You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
It's your appeal that's simplistic. You're taking the world as you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is. Someone has to have power. And if it's not the people you support, who's it going to be?
You'll get no disagreement from me there. Like I said, and you seem to want to ignore, the US has done bad things. The question isn't "has this entity ever done anything wrong", the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best?
> You’re free to define the scope of your ethics however you like, but again, these kind of simplistic appeals are increasingly untenable to most people. And many would probably categorize your adherence to their logic as “naive.”
It's your appeal that's simplistic. You're taking the world as you'd like it to be, rather than how it actually is. Someone has to have power. And if it's not the people you support, who's it going to be?
The question is also, "How is this going to be used, and is it necessary?" Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler. But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War? Furthering drone strike technology? Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.
> Designing weapons to defeat Hitler could easily be justified, cause Hitler
You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up.
> But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War?
I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too.
> Furthering drone strike technology?
I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing.
Now, I do disagree at the margin with some of the policy choices about how drones have been used. But if someone is going to have the best drones, you'd better believe I want that someone to be the USG.
> Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.
You're conflating the choice to go to war with the technology to facilitate that war. They are not the same thing. The choice to to war was a mistake. But once the choice has been made, ensuring that victory is swift and precise is absolutely ethical.
You can't just decide to make weapons when Hitler shows up. You need to be ready before Hitler shows up.
> But designing weapons to, say, better fight the Iraq War?
I'm no fan of the Iraq war. However, if we are going to fight the Iraq war, i'd certainly like us to have say, better targeted munitions, and I think Iraqi civilians would too.
> Furthering drone strike technology?
I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing.
Now, I do disagree at the margin with some of the policy choices about how drones have been used. But if someone is going to have the best drones, you'd better believe I want that someone to be the USG.
> Given that there was no need for that at all, I can't say that's ethical.
You're conflating the choice to go to war with the technology to facilitate that war. They are not the same thing. The choice to to war was a mistake. But once the choice has been made, ensuring that victory is swift and precise is absolutely ethical.
This is a ridiculous defence.
If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it.
Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st.
That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views are.
Military drones are an evil, allowing the US to wage wars and kill innocents in "collateral damage", otherwise known as mass-murder, without the PR backlash of losing soldiers.
If you make weapons, you are a killer. If there were really a hell, you would be going to it.
Be you a blacksmith who crafts swords in the 10th century or a software developer who makes military drone software in the 21st.
That you celebrate the use of drones, which save the life of one American at the expense of many innocent non-Americans, shows how utterly morally bankrupt your views are.
Military drones are an evil, allowing the US to wage wars and kill innocents in "collateral damage", otherwise known as mass-murder, without the PR backlash of losing soldiers.
It's like you didn't even read what I said. The world isn't a moral vacuum. You abdicating power does not mean that nobody has it. It means someone else does. If all of the 'good' people say "weapons and war are immoral", guess who is in control of all the weapons and war? It's really pretty easy to think through, and it's really pretty naive to bury your head in the sand.
We're not talking about abdicating power, here. The US already has that power. The US going to war doesn't give it more power, and not going to war in Iraq is not going to lessen it's power.
I've been pretty clear about not advocating the Iraq war. We're not talking about particular wars. Unfortunately, you don't get to pick and choose every thing that a government does with its power. Power comes from strength. Strength comes from weapons. Not building weapons is abdicating power. Abdicating power empowers others. Who are those others? Do we want them to have power? I think the answer is pretty clearly no.
> I'm a huge fan of drone strikes, so yes, to that one. That isn't to say i'm a huge fan of their indiscriminate use, of course. But if you're going to do some targeted killings, why not use drones? It exposes our soldiers to less risk, and allows for better, dispassionate targeting aided by automated tools. I think that's a great thing.
I think you got the correlation backwards here. You imply that we use drones because we had to do so many targeted killings that it would mean a huge risk for the soldiers. To me, it appears the other way around: The only way you can have so many targeted killings is because you're not putting your own people at risk anymore.
One scenario, you have maybe a hundred of your own soldiers killed in battle. The other scenario, you have thousands and thousands of foreign civilians killed by not-so-targeted killings. Of course the government will always have to side with its own citizens, so they relabel the civilians as terrorists to prevent cognitive dissonance.
I think you got the correlation backwards here. You imply that we use drones because we had to do so many targeted killings that it would mean a huge risk for the soldiers. To me, it appears the other way around: The only way you can have so many targeted killings is because you're not putting your own people at risk anymore.
One scenario, you have maybe a hundred of your own soldiers killed in battle. The other scenario, you have thousands and thousands of foreign civilians killed by not-so-targeted killings. Of course the government will always have to side with its own citizens, so they relabel the civilians as terrorists to prevent cognitive dissonance.
Yes, I understand that problem and you are correct. However, I still believe they are on balance a good thing. Let me be absolutely precise though: I would prefer a world without complex weapons. However, that world isn't on the menu. Given that someone is going to develop these things, I want it to be the entity I distrust least. On the world stage at the moment, that is the USG.
"You're conflating the choice to go to war with the technology to facilitate that war. They are not the same thing. The choice to to war was a mistake. But once the choice has been made, ensuring that victory is swift and precise is absolutely ethical."
I disagree. Creating these weapons, especially things like drones which make it much, much easier to go to war, and removes the penalty of having your own citizens die in combat, conflates those two things. If it's easier to go to war, and your side doesn't have to suffer casualties, you will go to war more often. Thus, these things are unethical, as you are facilitating war.
I disagree. Creating these weapons, especially things like drones which make it much, much easier to go to war, and removes the penalty of having your own citizens die in combat, conflates those two things. If it's easier to go to war, and your side doesn't have to suffer casualties, you will go to war more often. Thus, these things are unethical, as you are facilitating war.
> I disagree. Creating these weapons, especially things like drones which make it much, much easier to go to war, and removes the penalty of having your own citizens die in combat, conflates those two things. If it's easier to go to war, and your side doesn't have to suffer casualties, you will go to war more often. Thus, these things are unethical, as you are facilitating war.
You are correct. However, now that drones exist, working on them is going to be about making them more targeted. Making them less likely to kill civilians, and more efficient about what they do. In large part, I agree with the targeted killing of the individuals targeted by drone strikes. What I would like to do is make the weapons and targeting systems of those drones better at reducing collateral damage. That seems like an important goal to me, and a perfectly ethical one.
You are correct. However, now that drones exist, working on them is going to be about making them more targeted. Making them less likely to kill civilians, and more efficient about what they do. In large part, I agree with the targeted killing of the individuals targeted by drone strikes. What I would like to do is make the weapons and targeting systems of those drones better at reducing collateral damage. That seems like an important goal to me, and a perfectly ethical one.
When the next Hitler comes (and knowing human nature it is quite likely), it will be a bit late to start designing weapons to fight him.
> the question you have to answer is: from the pool of available options, who's best?
This question is misleading, as the goal is never to pick the nicest tyrant and is certainly not to backstop their power. While USG is a stabilizing force in the world with regards to its peers that also have significant armaments, it also acts as a destabilizing force towards those it can assimilate with impunity.
It's not that designing or building weapons is wrong by itself. The problem is further advancing the offensive capabilities of the already-uncontested leader of the race - a leader which continually opts for routine use of those capabilities when it is easy. The infrastructure for remotely piloting drones halfway around the world isn't going to help defend in a mortal war against China, but it does make nicer day jobs for those roflstomping the latest economically-deviant backwater.
Coupled with the domestic political fuckery from the military-industrial-surveillance complex, the current answer is to just say no. If you want to build weapons, do so in the privacy of your own shed - you'll be better prepared to defend yourself when this overstretched empire collapses.
This question is misleading, as the goal is never to pick the nicest tyrant and is certainly not to backstop their power. While USG is a stabilizing force in the world with regards to its peers that also have significant armaments, it also acts as a destabilizing force towards those it can assimilate with impunity.
It's not that designing or building weapons is wrong by itself. The problem is further advancing the offensive capabilities of the already-uncontested leader of the race - a leader which continually opts for routine use of those capabilities when it is easy. The infrastructure for remotely piloting drones halfway around the world isn't going to help defend in a mortal war against China, but it does make nicer day jobs for those roflstomping the latest economically-deviant backwater.
Coupled with the domestic political fuckery from the military-industrial-surveillance complex, the current answer is to just say no. If you want to build weapons, do so in the privacy of your own shed - you'll be better prepared to defend yourself when this overstretched empire collapses.
There are several reasons. First, weapons are made to kill. Even if they're not used, if they're finally used, the result is someone's death.
Second, the USA is not only stabilizing peace, but from time to time disrupts it. Sometimes a war is waged without proper consideration. I think Iraq is the best example, but the intervention in Afghanistan wasn't necessary either.
Third, even if you say the above were just mistakes, and the leaders of the USA had good intentions, weapons are a product just like everything else, and so they're sold. The USA has a list of "good" and "bad" states, but circumstances change very quickly nowadays. Also, once you sell a weapon, even to a "good" state, you lose control.
On the other hand, there are some military applications that are actually meant to save lives rather than taking them. One good example is clearing land mines - I guess no engineer would have any problems helping in constructing a robot that would disarm mines and other explosives.
Second, the USA is not only stabilizing peace, but from time to time disrupts it. Sometimes a war is waged without proper consideration. I think Iraq is the best example, but the intervention in Afghanistan wasn't necessary either.
Third, even if you say the above were just mistakes, and the leaders of the USA had good intentions, weapons are a product just like everything else, and so they're sold. The USA has a list of "good" and "bad" states, but circumstances change very quickly nowadays. Also, once you sell a weapon, even to a "good" state, you lose control.
On the other hand, there are some military applications that are actually meant to save lives rather than taking them. One good example is clearing land mines - I guess no engineer would have any problems helping in constructing a robot that would disarm mines and other explosives.
In a moral vacuum, I agree. If I could flip a switch and permanently erase nuclear weapons from the world, I think i'd probably flip that switch. However, we don't exist in a world with switches like that. Any weapon the US doesn't develop out of some moral sensibility, another state like Russian or China will. Ceding military strength is not virtuous, it's naive. The choice isn't between "should these weapons exist or not", it's "who should have them?". And the answer to that choice is: the entity you distrust least. For me that's the USG. I distrust them, just less than I do the other candidates.
And this is an extremely critical moral choice, because it's the only real one. Any other choice is just burying your head in the sand and saying the world doesn't exist.
And this is an extremely critical moral choice, because it's the only real one. Any other choice is just burying your head in the sand and saying the world doesn't exist.
Well, with WMDs we're past that point already. We have enough nukes to transform this world into hell in a few hours. Any advances in that area are of the nature that Putin mentioned recently, ones that no civilized nation would ever develop.
There is an enormous conventional arms market though. These are guns, pistols etc. Their sole aim is to kill people, plain and simple. You could justify it by saying some of those people deserve being killed, but as a creator of the weapon you can't know that, you have no control on how it's used. That's why many people would have moral objections against the production of conventional weapons.
There is an enormous conventional arms market though. These are guns, pistols etc. Their sole aim is to kill people, plain and simple. You could justify it by saying some of those people deserve being killed, but as a creator of the weapon you can't know that, you have no control on how it's used. That's why many people would have moral objections against the production of conventional weapons.
> but as a creator of the weapon you can't know that, you have no control on how it's used
That's not entirely true, especially if you are working for a military. You don't have total control over how it's used, but you can decide which government you work for.
That's not entirely true, especially if you are working for a military. You don't have total control over how it's used, but you can decide which government you work for.
I think it's fair to say that designing weapons that others will use is always an ethical quandary with unknowable complexity. If someone errs on the side of causing no harm - a commonly accepted default if discussions of the Trolly problem are anything to go by - then designing weapons is difficult to justify because it's just impossible to ensure that they'll be used in a way the designer would sanction. I don't necessarily disagree that it's naive to opt for inaction when faced with an ethical quandary of unknowable outcome, but it does seem to be the default position and that does count for a lot.
What I find interesting is that in some cases, the broad outcomes of a particular weapon being designed are predictable. Gunpowder is widely credited with destabilizing the feudal social order because it put military supremacy in the hands of the peasantry. Modern drones could well be used to sustain a new social order much in the way that heavy armor and stirrups sustained the feudal one. Whether that's a good thing of course depends on other ethical considerations, but if I had the opportunity to work on a weapons system, I would think much more about those kinds of implications than who would be using it - it seems best to assume the answer to that question is, "everyone".
What I find interesting is that in some cases, the broad outcomes of a particular weapon being designed are predictable. Gunpowder is widely credited with destabilizing the feudal social order because it put military supremacy in the hands of the peasantry. Modern drones could well be used to sustain a new social order much in the way that heavy armor and stirrups sustained the feudal one. Whether that's a good thing of course depends on other ethical considerations, but if I had the opportunity to work on a weapons system, I would think much more about those kinds of implications than who would be using it - it seems best to assume the answer to that question is, "everyone".
>an extremely powerful stabilizing force
For the American empire. Less so for the rest of the world.
For the American empire. Less so for the rest of the world.
I'd say preventing a nuclear war is pretty damn stabilizing across the world.
To be sure, there is plenty that the American empire can be criticized for. But if not the American empire, then whom? You think that power vacuum wouldn't be filled with something worse? Look at the contenders. The US, with all its flaws, is preferable. I am not endorsing American evils, but keep in mind that this kind of trivialization of geopolitical realities is unwise. It's better to focus on repairing what the US does wrong instead of suggesting that the entire empire must fall without thinking about the resulting clusterfuck that would ensue.
> This idea that it is unethical to build weapons is profoundly wrong, short sighted, and morally selfish.
Right. Anything unethical about building photon torpedoes for the federation? No.
Right. Anything unethical about building photon torpedoes for the federation? No.
I didn't say it was unethical to build weapons for anyone. I said it wasn't unethical to help build them at all. We don't live in a vacuum. If you don't build weapons for the side you prefer, someone else will for the side they prefer. And if all the 'good' people don't support the side they like, guess which side gets all the weapons? If you don't have any 'ethical' people in the military, guess who makes all the decisions? This is really so easy to think through, and the only moral conclusion is pretty clear.
That's exactly what I meant when I said it's nothing to be ashamed of, somebody's gotta do it. Just don't kid yourself that it makes you ethical. Sure, you could argue that you're "better than the other guy" or "they started it", but that's a pretty low bar. It just means you're both unethical.
I respectfully disagree. Consider a thought experiment: You have two groups of people. Group A is ethical (per your definition), well intentioned and smart. Group B is cruel, authoritarian and egotistical. Group A doesn't like to think about war, and certainly doesn't want to contribute to the machinery of war. Group B, on the other hand, delights in it. Group B loves building weapons and thinking about military strategy. Very quickly in this civilization, Group B will come to dominate Group A, and they will build a world in their own image - cruel and inhuman. Given that we know this is the outcome, in what sense is Group A's choice really ethical?
The question you have to ask is: If it's not you who has the best weapons, who is it? If it's not you devising military strategy, who is? The answer is someone else. Probably someone who likes those things more than you. Is that the sort of person you want to have that kind of power?
The question you have to ask is: If it's not you who has the best weapons, who is it? If it's not you devising military strategy, who is? The answer is someone else. Probably someone who likes those things more than you. Is that the sort of person you want to have that kind of power?
> Very quickly in this civilization, Group B will come to dominate Group A, and they will build a world in their own image - cruel and inhuman.
You're skipping the important part of the argument here, and going directly from the premise to your desired outcome without arguing why that will happen.
If what you describe were the unconditional outcome, how is it that our world is not gradually becoming more cruel and inhuman? I mean, there certainly are cruel and inhuman aspects to it, but for the most part, we live in a world that's vastly more prosperous and sophisticated than any other epoch before that, and also less violent. You included the link to Our World In Data yourself to prove that point.
Obviously, there are other aspects that contribute to the success of a society besides its military engagement. This can arguably be seen in how the influence of the US is slowly diminishing even though they have the largest military expenses by a wide margin.
You're skipping the important part of the argument here, and going directly from the premise to your desired outcome without arguing why that will happen.
If what you describe were the unconditional outcome, how is it that our world is not gradually becoming more cruel and inhuman? I mean, there certainly are cruel and inhuman aspects to it, but for the most part, we live in a world that's vastly more prosperous and sophisticated than any other epoch before that, and also less violent. You included the link to Our World In Data yourself to prove that point.
Obviously, there are other aspects that contribute to the success of a society besides its military engagement. This can arguably be seen in how the influence of the US is slowly diminishing even though they have the largest military expenses by a wide margin.
> If what you describe were the unconditional outcome, how is it that our world is not gradually becoming more cruel and inhuman?
Because not everyone makes the same naive choice to bury their head in the sand and say "moral people don't build weapons". There is a long tradition of great scientists making the only moral choice and choosing to develop weapons for the powers they trusted the most. Those people made the extremely hard, but ultimately correct choice to build weapons of war for imperfect powers. They did so because they knew that if they didn't, someone else would. And that someone else might be building them for an even less ethical power.
Because not everyone makes the same naive choice to bury their head in the sand and say "moral people don't build weapons". There is a long tradition of great scientists making the only moral choice and choosing to develop weapons for the powers they trusted the most. Those people made the extremely hard, but ultimately correct choice to build weapons of war for imperfect powers. They did so because they knew that if they didn't, someone else would. And that someone else might be building them for an even less ethical power.
In your scenario, Group A got dragged into the mud by Group B. If they wanted to stay ethical, they would've been "dominated". They chose strength and survival over staying "clean". Like I said before, it's fine, and I'd probably agree with it. It may even be the lesser of two evils. I need to reiterate that I'm not disagreeing with Group A's actions here to resist. I'm just saying accept the fact that you're probably trading your ethics for it.
I think the key difference between our points of view is how strictly we want to define "being ethical". I'm pretty strict about the definition. At the same time, I'm okay with being labeled unethical from time to time.
I think the key difference between our points of view is how strictly we want to define "being ethical". I'm pretty strict about the definition. At the same time, I'm okay with being labeled unethical from time to time.
How are you defining ethics if not commensurate with the predictable consequences of your choices? If it is predictable that your choices will lead to more suffering and a worse-off world, how is that ethical?
Combining unethical and necessary defeats the point of identifying some things as unethical: if you're going to do them anyways, why bother calling them wrong? The motivation behind bringing ethics into the workplace is that broader human interests are that engineers and other front-liners (operators, doctors, technicians, soldiers) should refuse to do things that are excessively bad. If you think they should just suck it up and get the job done, then don't bin the job you want them to do in with other things that they clearly shouldn't.
It needs to be considered acceptable to tell your boss no on ethical grounds.
To make this concrete, we want there to be one bin for "putting live viral payloads in to vaccines destined for a foreign country," and another bin for "annoying shoppers with eye-level advertisements," and maybe another bin for "improving the efficiency of infrastructure." Ideally, irrespective of where the profit motives lied it would be impossible to recruit anybody for sufficiently nefarious purposes, with the recruitment difficulty scaling with how much harm they knew they were going to do to the world.
It needs to be considered acceptable to tell your boss no on ethical grounds.
To make this concrete, we want there to be one bin for "putting live viral payloads in to vaccines destined for a foreign country," and another bin for "annoying shoppers with eye-level advertisements," and maybe another bin for "improving the efficiency of infrastructure." Ideally, irrespective of where the profit motives lied it would be impossible to recruit anybody for sufficiently nefarious purposes, with the recruitment difficulty scaling with how much harm they knew they were going to do to the world.
[deleted]
> Sure, you could argue that you're "better than the other guy" or "they started it", but that's a pretty low bar. It just means you're both unethical.
Something about supporting the military when it means resisting oppressive authoritarian hegemony, for instance, seems pretty ethical to me.
Something about supporting the military when it means resisting oppressive authoritarian hegemony, for instance, seems pretty ethical to me.
as long as it is not you who is dying?
>If it makes MIT feel better, I don't think "ethics" when I think of MIT.
You and every Tom, Dick and Harry. And that's okay why?
You and every Tom, Dick and Harry. And that's okay why?
Hey folks --
Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion.
We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the information is), we'd really appreciate it if you could email [email protected].
Further, if you're affiliated with MIT and you're interested in writing a letter to the editor in response to this piece, we'd love that as well -- please email letters [email protected].
Thanks so much everybody!
Thanks to everybody who read the editorial and commented! We're glad that it's generating some discussion.
We're interested in writing another piece on MIT and the military. A lot of these comments contain useful information and we'd love to hear more tip from you all for future pieces -- if you have any information regarding the topic (regardless of how trivial or how well-known you think the information is), we'd really appreciate it if you could email [email protected].
Further, if you're affiliated with MIT and you're interested in writing a letter to the editor in response to this piece, we'd love that as well -- please email letters [email protected].
Thanks so much everybody!
Super glad to see people taking on issues of holding institutions accountable to at least acknowledging the way their investments support immoral actors.
I just figured MIT was making “easy” ethical statements. In general the examples that MIT spoke out about had no opposing parties, had no impact to MIT, and no repercussions. So MIT didn’t really have to care or make a sacrifice to speak out for Dreamers or against Charlottesville and whatnot.
But for anything that requires sacrifice like MBS not giving an endowment, they suck it up. This is what sucks as wishy washy populism as it doesn’t reflect any insight into an orginizarion’s leadership’s values.
MIT is likely concerned with increasing its power. Thus is part of the establishment. Doing lots of great things, but part of the establishment.
Thus their total cop out over Aaron Schwartz back to when they didn’t admit their first black professor until 1956 (http://diverseeducation.com/article/7136/).
There’s a really popular and well respected engineering school that has a big problem with sexual assault. They issue statements and sponsor marches and stuff. But drag their feet on any actions like removing organizations that frequently have members commit sexual assault.
I just consider most of the statements from universities PR and virtue signaling unless it’s acompanied with allocation of resources.
But for anything that requires sacrifice like MBS not giving an endowment, they suck it up. This is what sucks as wishy washy populism as it doesn’t reflect any insight into an orginizarion’s leadership’s values.
MIT is likely concerned with increasing its power. Thus is part of the establishment. Doing lots of great things, but part of the establishment.
Thus their total cop out over Aaron Schwartz back to when they didn’t admit their first black professor until 1956 (http://diverseeducation.com/article/7136/).
There’s a really popular and well respected engineering school that has a big problem with sexual assault. They issue statements and sponsor marches and stuff. But drag their feet on any actions like removing organizations that frequently have members commit sexual assault.
I just consider most of the statements from universities PR and virtue signaling unless it’s acompanied with allocation of resources.
Can you elaborate on MIT's problems with sexual assault? That's news to me. If true, I'm pretty sad to hear about this. As an aging alum, MIT is still a place dear to my heart but over time it feels like the institute I remember is slipping away... (or I'm just becoming more aware of reality)
(also not clear if you're referring to MIT or some other 'well respected engineering school').
(also not clear if you're referring to MIT or some other 'well respected engineering school').
"MIT is likely concerned with increasing its power. Thus is part of the establishment. Doing lots of great things, but part of the establishment."
Almost all organized groups exist in order to increase their power/influence. Those who try to destroy centers of power without either redistributing power or accumulating it for themselves are destroyers, nothing more.
Almost all organized groups exist in order to increase their power/influence. Those who try to destroy centers of power without either redistributing power or accumulating it for themselves are destroyers, nothing more.
Isn’t redistributing power different from increasing ones own power though?
My goal is to redistribute power from people of my “kind” to people in my geography, roughly evenly. I think that’s fundamentally different from “increasing my own power” although I do admit it’s not wholly different.
I think your statement is just too reductive. There are corporations, federations, partnerships, syndicates, all of these organizations have vastly different power centralization properties.
My goal is to redistribute power from people of my “kind” to people in my geography, roughly evenly. I think that’s fundamentally different from “increasing my own power” although I do admit it’s not wholly different.
I think your statement is just too reductive. There are corporations, federations, partnerships, syndicates, all of these organizations have vastly different power centralization properties.
> It is a well-documented fact that Apple products are built through the exploitation of laborers in foreign factories, who must work deplorable hours for pitiable wages.
It's also pretty well documented that Apple does at least as much as, and usually for more than, any other major consumer electronics company to make its suppliers improve working conditions and wages.
I'm curious how Apple compares to whoever made the computer the author used to type that article, or whoever made the author's mobile phone.
It's also pretty well documented that Apple does at least as much as, and usually for more than, any other major consumer electronics company to make its suppliers improve working conditions and wages.
I'm curious how Apple compares to whoever made the computer the author used to type that article, or whoever made the author's mobile phone.
I bet the wages are not pitiable for the people that work there.
You don't even have to look as far as Saudi Arabia to raise similar questions. The Koch brothers are MIT graduates and huge donors. For a similar discussion of the ethics of MIT's acceptance of their money, see: https://www.quora.com/How-could-MIT-have-received-a-grant-fo...
I remember being shocked at walking down Kendall and seeing the cancer research building named the "Koch Institute". I'm glad the Kochs are doing things with their money other than attempting to overthrow democratic government and burn the world but my feeling is that MIT shouldn't help immunize them to criticism by burnishing their reputation.
“Greenwashing”. It’s a big business for non-profits.
Agreed that MIT should be careful taking money from big donors with obvious agendas. When the Koches put money into universities, it typically has strings attached - they get some say in hiring faculty that align with their agenda, for example.
Here's more discussion of the Koch strategy to put money into universities, including MIT, in an effort to buy ideological support for their political goals (which are to destroy government to cut billionaires' taxes.)
http://www.unkochmycampus.org/
From Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-2...
From the Chronicle of Higher Ed: https://apicciano.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2017/12/21/the-chronic...
Here's more discussion of the Koch strategy to put money into universities, including MIT, in an effort to buy ideological support for their political goals (which are to destroy government to cut billionaires' taxes.)
http://www.unkochmycampus.org/
From Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-2...
From the Chronicle of Higher Ed: https://apicciano.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2017/12/21/the-chronic...
As a former MIT person, I applaud the editorial board here. I had long assumed that despite MIT housing a dissident or two here and there, their primary social mission is to provide technical advice to the people that run the country and elite staff for them. MIT students and staff spend far too much time narrowly focused on (beautiful) math and engineering without properly reflecting on how their hard earned abilities will be used.
MBS's crimes in his country and in Yemen (and US complicity) should be sharply criticized by people who think they represent the front of progress for human civilization.
MBS's crimes in his country and in Yemen (and US complicity) should be sharply criticized by people who think they represent the front of progress for human civilization.
They'll be used to make me money beeeeitcg
Living ethically is very expensive, as you often have to turn down generous but unethical offers.
I am not surprised about MIT's behaviour by the way. As long as top-level education stays private and has to hunt for funding, things like this will always happen.
I am not surprised about MIT's behaviour by the way. As long as top-level education stays private and has to hunt for funding, things like this will always happen.
Does MIT really need to "hunt for funding"? My impression is that their endowment is enormous.
A huge amount of the money in big endowments comes from various unsavory characters. The names of buildings at famous universities are a Who’s Who of famous fortunes built on slavery, war profiteering, drug running, child labor, wage theft and other worker abuse, large-scale environmental destruction, bribes and kickbacks, fraud, outright theft, etc.
The Saudis are a particularly unsavory monarchy (torture, arbitrary imprisonment, lack of basic political rights, foreign assassinations, sponsorship of terrorism, direct military attacks on foreign civilians, etc.), but not fundamentally different from many historical donors.
The Saudis are a particularly unsavory monarchy (torture, arbitrary imprisonment, lack of basic political rights, foreign assassinations, sponsorship of terrorism, direct military attacks on foreign civilians, etc.), but not fundamentally different from many historical donors.
The Saudi money is different in that the university administration today is seeking it out, as opposed to money from historical donors, which the current administration already has. Which is not to say that historical blood money, whether the direct result of (for instance) slave sales [1], or laundered as philanthropy from robber barons is ethically free and clear; rather, if your institution has long been engaged in taking that money, the very least you can do is stop taking it now.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-...
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/17/us/georgetown-university-...
Endowments are complicated. The money often has restrictions on how it can be used, and of course the goal is for the endowment's principal to grow.
A large endowment doesn't guarantee that an institution is wealthy enough to refuse money.
A large endowment doesn't guarantee that an institution is wealthy enough to refuse money.
Yes the source of much of the enormous endowment is Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and private donations (see the new Koch building, for example). The major energy companies (e.g. Shell) are also big donors to the climate change research group which has no doubt tempered their publicly expressed views.
So overall much of the funding is from less than ideal sources from an ethical point of view. It does create some issues from time to time.
So overall much of the funding is from less than ideal sources from an ethical point of view. It does create some issues from time to time.
Are you sure the DoE or DoD are contributing to MIT’s endowment? That seems unlikely to me. Those agencies award research contracts with statements of work on a cost plus overhead basis. That’s not at all the same as contributing to an endowment.
"All research institutions get additional money tacked on to federal science and medical grants to help pay for general overhead. But federal rules allow institutions to deposit those payments into their general budgets, with no requirement they be used to directly support scientific endeavors."
"Universities and the federal government became partners in research after World War II. MIT was one of the biggest beneficiaries. The National Institutes of Health initially set the overhead reimbursement rate at 8 percent and it eventually rose to 20 percent for all universities. In 1965, Congress permitted schools to directly negotiate their rates with the federal government, setting ballooning rates on their course."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/17/harvard-m...
You are probably right that much of the money may technically not be part of the endowment but I'm not sure that the technicalities of what constitutes an endowment is very useful if they are still the main funder of the university.
If universities include up to 90% "overhead" that can be deposited into their general budgets with no requirement that it supports scientific endeavors then what do we really mean when we say the DoE / DoD don't contribute to the endowment? We mean they weren't "donations" basically? The article wasn't really about donations / endowment so other than using a slightly wrong word its not really relevant to the discussion anyway.
Furthermore more than half of MIT's R&D funds come from the government so this isn't exactly an edge case. Its the rule not the exception.
"Universities and the federal government became partners in research after World War II. MIT was one of the biggest beneficiaries. The National Institutes of Health initially set the overhead reimbursement rate at 8 percent and it eventually rose to 20 percent for all universities. In 1965, Congress permitted schools to directly negotiate their rates with the federal government, setting ballooning rates on their course."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2013/03/17/harvard-m...
You are probably right that much of the money may technically not be part of the endowment but I'm not sure that the technicalities of what constitutes an endowment is very useful if they are still the main funder of the university.
If universities include up to 90% "overhead" that can be deposited into their general budgets with no requirement that it supports scientific endeavors then what do we really mean when we say the DoE / DoD don't contribute to the endowment? We mean they weren't "donations" basically? The article wasn't really about donations / endowment so other than using a slightly wrong word its not really relevant to the discussion anyway.
Furthermore more than half of MIT's R&D funds come from the government so this isn't exactly an edge case. Its the rule not the exception.
Any MIT profs here that are prepared to comment on what fraction of their overhead is lost into the endowment? That rate is zero for me, but I'm not at MIT.
Overhead for me is around 50% depending on source, and everyone here is motivated to spend as much of that on research as possible. It would be very inefficient to put that money in the general fund. Much better to fund one more PhD student than bank $50K.
Overhead for me is around 50% depending on source, and everyone here is motivated to spend as much of that on research as possible. It would be very inefficient to put that money in the general fund. Much better to fund one more PhD student than bank $50K.
Like any for-profit entity, growth is one of its primary objectives. Stagnation is death.
It's certainly not helped that our government has taken aim directly at universities with sizable endowments[1]. The recent tax bill hits hard and has directly impacted MIT's ability to provide financial aid and pursue humanitarian research[2].
1. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/01/16/tax-college-...
2. http://news.mit.edu/2017/letter-regarding-new-federal-tax-bi...
It's certainly not helped that our government has taken aim directly at universities with sizable endowments[1]. The recent tax bill hits hard and has directly impacted MIT's ability to provide financial aid and pursue humanitarian research[2].
1. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2018/01/16/tax-college-...
2. http://news.mit.edu/2017/letter-regarding-new-federal-tax-bi...
A 1.4% tax on endowment income is consider being hard hit?
If they invested it at all wisely, they should have made at least 5% over the past year.
When I was at Dartmouth during the great recession a decade ago, they were gloating that they were nevertheless still making gains on the endowment, as the rest of the world crashed.
When I was at Dartmouth during the great recession a decade ago, they were gloating that they were nevertheless still making gains on the endowment, as the rest of the world crashed.
Last fiscal year MIT's investments earned a 14.3% profit or $1.86 in gains. The principle is now $14.8B. Agreed that 1.4% doesn't feel too crazy... http://news.mit.edu/2017/endowment-figures-2017-0908
Though curiously, MIT's own estimation of the new tax says it'll only cost $10M. If MIT really made $2.1B in one year on just investments, an extra $10M seems pretty manageable. (though this also seems far less than the 1.4% cited, so not sure what's going on).
Here's where MIT mentions the $10M in new taxes: http://news.mit.edu/2017/letter-regarding-new-federal-tax-bi...
Though curiously, MIT's own estimation of the new tax says it'll only cost $10M. If MIT really made $2.1B in one year on just investments, an extra $10M seems pretty manageable. (though this also seems far less than the 1.4% cited, so not sure what's going on).
Here's where MIT mentions the $10M in new taxes: http://news.mit.edu/2017/letter-regarding-new-federal-tax-bi...
> at least $10 million a year.
Presumably the tax is on future 2018 earnings, not 2017 earning.s
Presumably the tax is on future 2018 earnings, not 2017 earning.s
A lot of righteous, eloquent fury here. I had nearly forgotten about the foxconn suicides, and now that I think about it I don't remember anything really happening except nets being put up.
Louis CK (RIP our opinion of him, but still) put it pretty well once, something along the lines of "slavery built everything we love. We just throw human death and suffering at a thing until it's done. There's no end to what you can do when you don't give a fuck about a certain group of people. You can have candles and horses and be a little kinder to eachother, or you can leverage the endless suffering of someone really far away so you can leave a mean comment on someone's youtube video while you take a shit."
Louis CK (RIP our opinion of him, but still) put it pretty well once, something along the lines of "slavery built everything we love. We just throw human death and suffering at a thing until it's done. There's no end to what you can do when you don't give a fuck about a certain group of people. You can have candles and horses and be a little kinder to eachother, or you can leverage the endless suffering of someone really far away so you can leave a mean comment on someone's youtube video while you take a shit."
Apparently (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides), the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate.
> the suicide rate at Foxconn during that period was lower than the overall Chinese or US suicide rate.
Please allow me to change your opinion on this. The comparison being made there is the ( number of suicides at Foxconn / number of Foxconn employees ) vs number of suicides in China / population of China. At first glance, this looks like a valid comparison. But it is not. It is actually comparing apples to oranges. The real comparison is against number of employees who choose to commit suicide at their employers premise / number of employees. A useful way to paraphrase this is:
Lets say Google has 100,000 employees. How many Google employees commit suicide at the Googleplex per year? Not how many google employees commit suicide overall.
When phrased this way, it becomes clear that other companies have much lower suicide rates than Foxconn.
That's what is critical to compare. It turns out Foxconn's suicide rate is massively higher than equivalent Chinese employers and the inference is the alleged egregious mistreatment of Foxconn laborers by Foxconn is the cause.
Please allow me to change your opinion on this. The comparison being made there is the ( number of suicides at Foxconn / number of Foxconn employees ) vs number of suicides in China / population of China. At first glance, this looks like a valid comparison. But it is not. It is actually comparing apples to oranges. The real comparison is against number of employees who choose to commit suicide at their employers premise / number of employees. A useful way to paraphrase this is:
Lets say Google has 100,000 employees. How many Google employees commit suicide at the Googleplex per year? Not how many google employees commit suicide overall.
When phrased this way, it becomes clear that other companies have much lower suicide rates than Foxconn.
That's what is critical to compare. It turns out Foxconn's suicide rate is massively higher than equivalent Chinese employers and the inference is the alleged egregious mistreatment of Foxconn laborers by Foxconn is the cause.
>The real comparison is against number of employees who choose to commit suicide at their employers premise / number of employees.
A very large proportion of Chinese factory workers (including a majority of Foxconn workers) live in company-owned dormitories located on or near the factory site. Most Chinese factory workers are internal migrants from poorer northern and central provinces. These workers generally prefer dormitory accommodation, because it allows them to save a larger proportion of their salary towards their future plans.
You would only be comparing like-with-like if Google provided on-site housing at the Googleplex to a majority of their workers.
A very large proportion of Chinese factory workers (including a majority of Foxconn workers) live in company-owned dormitories located on or near the factory site. Most Chinese factory workers are internal migrants from poorer northern and central provinces. These workers generally prefer dormitory accommodation, because it allows them to save a larger proportion of their salary towards their future plans.
You would only be comparing like-with-like if Google provided on-site housing at the Googleplex to a majority of their workers.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Lets say Google has 100,000 employees. How many Google employees commit suicide at the Googleplex per year?
Google employees don't live at the Googleplex so that's not valid.
If you want to compare them to other companies you would either need to include suicide off campus of the other companies or exclude suicide off-shift at Foxconn.
Google employees don't live at the Googleplex so that's not valid.
If you want to compare them to other companies you would either need to include suicide off campus of the other companies or exclude suicide off-shift at Foxconn.
Why do you think the Foxconn suicide figures don't include all suicide attempts by employees?
Note that one of the attempts catalogued on Wikipedia states that one Mr. 刘 "threw himself from the sixth floor of a dormitory building". That would tend to imply that the statistics cover the workers while they're on or off the job -- the statistics are for suicide attempts on campus, but the employees live on campus.
And that would tend to imply that the appropriate comparison is indeed "how many people commit suicide anywhere?", not "how many people commit suicide in the office?".
Note that one of the attempts catalogued on Wikipedia states that one Mr. 刘 "threw himself from the sixth floor of a dormitory building". That would tend to imply that the statistics cover the workers while they're on or off the job -- the statistics are for suicide attempts on campus, but the employees live on campus.
And that would tend to imply that the appropriate comparison is indeed "how many people commit suicide anywhere?", not "how many people commit suicide in the office?".
Its much simpler actually.
If you have a bunch of companies trying to keep their shit together while barely able to make their product and then someone kills himself simple because the situation is no longer worth living - then it is a sad thing.
If the product is one of the most successful things in human history the suicide is a design goal.
If we don't stand up to it and at least voice our objection we will all be treated like that eventually - regardless of corporate success or personal productivity.
The only other role is that of the psychopath pressuring those who do the work in order to meet the suicide quota. If you don't meet the suicide quota your workers are not working hard enough or you are paying them to much. It's simple business logic nothing personal.
If you have a bunch of companies trying to keep their shit together while barely able to make their product and then someone kills himself simple because the situation is no longer worth living - then it is a sad thing.
If the product is one of the most successful things in human history the suicide is a design goal.
If we don't stand up to it and at least voice our objection we will all be treated like that eventually - regardless of corporate success or personal productivity.
The only other role is that of the psychopath pressuring those who do the work in order to meet the suicide quota. If you don't meet the suicide quota your workers are not working hard enough or you are paying them to much. It's simple business logic nothing personal.
This contains a common logical error in most of the poor-people-suffer-to-serve-us-rich-people arguments. That is to ignore anyone whose suffering has no causal link from us. For example, an isolated tribesman may die from an easily treatable disease because he has no medicine and we don't blame rich people for that. But if he moves to town to earn money for medicine and then dies in a construction site accident, we blame ourselves for causing the construction site to exist. We forget that he may have been in greater danger or suffering more before getting involved with us.
It applies to low wages for illegal immigrants too. Once they're in our country, we feel responsible for them. Before they got here, we don't care at all how little they earn. Some people even go so far as to want to kick them out to save them from earning low wages. Really it just saves us the guilt but makes it worse for the individual.
It applies to low wages for illegal immigrants too. Once they're in our country, we feel responsible for them. Before they got here, we don't care at all how little they earn. Some people even go so far as to want to kick them out to save them from earning low wages. Really it just saves us the guilt but makes it worse for the individual.
Someone quits or is fired and within a week commits suicide. Not counted. If that's the case, it is another reason it isn't fair to compare with national numbers.
And if someone lives on corporate campus but commits suicide off of a bridge in town, not counted?
And if someone lives on corporate campus but commits suicide off of a bridge in town, not counted?
[deleted]
tclancy(1)
> slavery built everything we love
Not at all. The repudiation of slavery built everything we love. The Confederacy went to war with the Union to protect its failing economy. Their loss in the Civil War resulted in the utter destruction of the slave economy and what it produced.
Not at all. The repudiation of slavery built everything we love. The Confederacy went to war with the Union to protect its failing economy. Their loss in the Civil War resulted in the utter destruction of the slave economy and what it produced.
The enormous profits from the slave plantations were in part put into the industry that developed in the north, providing lots of the much-needed starting capital. The US wouldn't be where they're at today without the exploitation of slaves.
> The enormous profits from the slave plantations were in part put into the industry that developed in the north
The slave plantations could barely sustain themselves, and they started to war because they wanted to protect their fragile economy from competition.
The free north industrialized and economically buried the slave south. The rebel army didn't even have shoes - they went barefoot. The slave economy couldn't even produce shoes.
Of course there was trade and investment going back and forth between the states, after all, it was one country. But the idea that the wealth of the north depended on "enormous profits" from slavery is just not credible.
There's a reason that slavery died out in the northern states by 1800 or so. It didn't pay. It didn't produce enormous profits. It was an economic loser.
Slavery has failed every time it went up against free labor. It just can't compete.
The slave plantations could barely sustain themselves, and they started to war because they wanted to protect their fragile economy from competition.
The free north industrialized and economically buried the slave south. The rebel army didn't even have shoes - they went barefoot. The slave economy couldn't even produce shoes.
Of course there was trade and investment going back and forth between the states, after all, it was one country. But the idea that the wealth of the north depended on "enormous profits" from slavery is just not credible.
There's a reason that slavery died out in the northern states by 1800 or so. It didn't pay. It didn't produce enormous profits. It was an economic loser.
Slavery has failed every time it went up against free labor. It just can't compete.
Apart from actual slavery with chains and guns, often the people suffering are suffering less doing the productive work than they would be otherwise because they do it by choice. So you could equally say "reducing human suffering has brought us all the things we love". Even when people die, they've taken a risk doing the dangerous job instead of whatever else which was worse. Anyone who drives to work is doing that - you could stay home unemployed or risk death in a car crash to make money.
It's an interesting claim that they are suffering less because they are doing it by choice. I'm not sure if it's true.
Doing it by choice creates all sorts of ill psychological effects. It means I have to convince myself to keep doing it, and as a result I'll try to convince myself of things like "it's fair" or "I like this" or so on. I think I might actually be happier as a slave than a wage slave doing the exact same shitty work and ridiculous hours as a slave because at least I can be honest with myself about the situation.
Normally wage slavery is better - because it means that the employers can't enforce quite as shitty conditions or long hours as a actual slave. But it's not clear to me that that is happening here, and even if it is happening here if you understood your argument to rely on it.
Doing it by choice creates all sorts of ill psychological effects. It means I have to convince myself to keep doing it, and as a result I'll try to convince myself of things like "it's fair" or "I like this" or so on. I think I might actually be happier as a slave than a wage slave doing the exact same shitty work and ridiculous hours as a slave because at least I can be honest with myself about the situation.
Normally wage slavery is better - because it means that the employers can't enforce quite as shitty conditions or long hours as a actual slave. But it's not clear to me that that is happening here, and even if it is happening here if you understood your argument to rely on it.
“Wage slavery” as it is often used is a bad term that takes away from the fact that there are more total people in slavery or forced labor than ever before in the history of the world. Chattel slavery is repugnant and debases all moral people. Working a shitty job for low pay and an asshole boss sucks but is a difference in kind, not degree.
You literally just stated the opposite of what I was arguing as if it was a fact, with no argument given.
And to be clear, we are well beyond "asshole boss" or anything legal in the western world. We are considering a situation where you are treated identically to a slave except that instead of being forced to work via beatings and supplied food, you are supplied just enough money to eat - buying everything at the company store - and forced to work by "well otherwise you starve to death".
(By food I also include things like shelter and so on...)
And to be clear, we are well beyond "asshole boss" or anything legal in the western world. We are considering a situation where you are treated identically to a slave except that instead of being forced to work via beatings and supplied food, you are supplied just enough money to eat - buying everything at the company store - and forced to work by "well otherwise you starve to death".
(By food I also include things like shelter and so on...)
I presented a different view, not an argument. I stated my view as fact because it is in fact how I see the world. For arguments about chattel slavey and wage Labour, the Wikipedia article does a pretty good job: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_slavery
There are people in the world who are functionally chattel slaves who happen to receive a nominal wage, but this is not what the term “wage slavery” typically refers to; that term (and perhaps your argument, though I am not sure) equivocates wage labor with chattel slavery. I and others believe the difference is vast, important, and moral.
There are people in the world who are functionally chattel slaves who happen to receive a nominal wage, but this is not what the term “wage slavery” typically refers to; that term (and perhaps your argument, though I am not sure) equivocates wage labor with chattel slavery. I and others believe the difference is vast, important, and moral.
> well otherwise you starve to death
That's why such work is a good thing, not a bad thing. It saves people from starving to death. Which is what happens periodically during famines in extremely undeveloped countries, such as most of history.
That's why such work is a good thing, not a bad thing. It saves people from starving to death. Which is what happens periodically during famines in extremely undeveloped countries, such as most of history.
Just look at all the beautiful castles and churches in Europe. They were mostly built on the backs of peasants. Or all the generals we revere who sent thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who had not much to gain from the war to their deaths.
> Just look at all the beautiful castles and churches in Europe. They were mostly built on the backs of peasants.
That's not accurate. Skilled workers built those.
> Or all the generals we revere who sent thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who had not much to gain from the war to their deaths.
Who exactly? That does not sound representative.
That's not accurate. Skilled workers built those.
> Or all the generals we revere who sent thousands or hundreds of thousands of people who had not much to gain from the war to their deaths.
Who exactly? That does not sound representative.
That's true in pre-European contact Peru as well. The amazing architecture was produced by skilled craftsman as a community effort. They didn't/couldn't build anything of quality once they were enslaved by the Spanish. (I'm not an expert, but I visited Peru a couple years ago)
[deleted]
"That's not accurate. Skilled workers built those."
The skilled workers did the difficult parts. Getting the materials to the construction site and other (often dangerous) tasks were done either by children or peasants that had either been forced or attracted by false promises. In addition the churches and kings often didn't pay the promised money. Just read some history books. The top guys always wanted to keep as much to themselves as they could. No difference to now. They could be even greedier back then because the little guy had no rights.
The skilled workers did the difficult parts. Getting the materials to the construction site and other (often dangerous) tasks were done either by children or peasants that had either been forced or attracted by false promises. In addition the churches and kings often didn't pay the promised money. Just read some history books. The top guys always wanted to keep as much to themselves as they could. No difference to now. They could be even greedier back then because the little guy had no rights.
How about this one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_invasion_of_Russia
I never watched Louis CK, but I managed to dig up a reference for that quote [1]. Regarding Foxconn, @evanpw is right though in that the suicide rates were not significantly different from those in the rest of the country. There is no denying though that a lot of human and non-human suffering has gone – and goes for that matter – into the very things we treasure and admire; one can wonder if this will always be the case?
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O5h4enjrHw&t=2m59s
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0O5h4enjrHw&t=2m59s
I must have missed some intersection between pop culture and some political bubble. What happened to our opinion of Louis CK?
Sexual harassment. Self admitted. Ugly stuff.
Like most quotes from comedians that sound smart, he’s totally wrong. Unless you consider all existence is suffering or something or make the definition of suffering so broad as to make the quote pointless.
Just a few examples of great things accomplished without great human suffering or slavery- space race, Internet, Inca Trail, Bilbao Museum.
Just a few examples of great things accomplished without great human suffering or slavery- space race, Internet, Inca Trail, Bilbao Museum.
> space race
This was literally the result of the Cold War.
> Internet
Partially the same as above, also, there's no denying that they're isn't any suffering because of the Internet.
> Inca Trail, Biblao Museum
These mostly came about because of mechanization or better technology…
This was literally the result of the Cold War.
> Internet
Partially the same as above, also, there's no denying that they're isn't any suffering because of the Internet.
> Inca Trail, Biblao Museum
These mostly came about because of mechanization or better technology…
The quote in question is "slavery built everything we love".
Explain how slavery built the Internet or triggered the space race.
Explain how slavery built the Internet or triggered the space race.
No, the quote is "great things accomplished without great human suffering or slavery".
Yeah, that's just being dramatic too.
A tremendous amount of things in the past were created by skilled artisans, workers, farmers etc.
And in those cases where people had to do difficult work and suffered, that was because there were no other ways of accomplishing that work.
It's not that there was some cabal of evil leaders making life hard for the masses, it's that in order to accomplish things like mining and large scale public works without machines, hard manual labor was necessary.
Of course we could have just not done any of this, but then we would still be hunter gatherers.
A tremendous amount of things in the past were created by skilled artisans, workers, farmers etc.
And in those cases where people had to do difficult work and suffered, that was because there were no other ways of accomplishing that work.
It's not that there was some cabal of evil leaders making life hard for the masses, it's that in order to accomplish things like mining and large scale public works without machines, hard manual labor was necessary.
Of course we could have just not done any of this, but then we would still be hunter gatherers.
Soviet Union -> Stalin -> Communist hegemony in Europe -> Space Race
Sorry to dissapoint but see below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#Slave_labor
"More people died building the V-2 rockets than were killed by it as a weapon"
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career
"American authorities then chose to use von Braun and his German team's experience with missiles to create an orbital launch vehicle. Wernher von Braun had such an idea originally proposed in 1954, but it was denied at the time.[60]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#Slave_labor
"More people died building the V-2 rockets than were killed by it as a weapon"
...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wernher_von_Braun#NASA_career
"American authorities then chose to use von Braun and his German team's experience with missiles to create an orbital launch vehicle. Wernher von Braun had such an idea originally proposed in 1954, but it was denied at the time.[60]"
The production of the V2 was done by slave labor, but the research and development of it was not. As far as I can tell there were no slaves at Peenemunde.
Not slaves.
[deleted]
Anybody about Aaron Swartz and MIT?
EDIT: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16769270
[deleted]
Mbs is not trying to make himself look like a positive transformative figure, he actually is one. The war in Yemen is equally the fault of Saudi Arabia and Iran but I don't hear anyone calling for sanctions on Iran. I am astounded that such ignorance could come from one of the worlds pillars of higher education. Consolidation of power such as that recently performed by mbs is routine and it was done in a very humane way indeed compared to other instances. When you consider that not properly consolidating power could lead to the compromising of the state and perhaps set the groundwork for the destruction of the state, his actions seem quite reasonable
> When you consider that not properly consolidating power could lead to the compromising of the state
> I am astounded that such ignorance could come from one of the worlds pillars of higher education."
You bring up some interesting points. I'm not remotely familiar with MBS, so this is just pointing out why in general you shouldn't expect a reformer to look like a reformer.
Lincoln by his own words absolutely looked like a bastard who didn't give a damn about slavery, and nevertheless set in motion events to free slaves. And, of course, to get enough popular support, he couldn't be too outwardly anti-slavery. That's inherent in statecraft: to get things to change, you expect to have to play the people who don't want them to change.
And if a reformer is fooling the people whose agenda is to stymie reform, you should expect a less interested third-party to be fooled. So if MBS was a reformer, it shouldn't be surprised that educated people might study him quite carefully and not remotely catch on that he's enacting reforms.
Likewise, it's just as possible he is a total bastard, the MIT students are right, and you're getting suckered.
Again, I haven't read up on MBS at all, this is just a practical reality to keep in mind when you're evaluating a reform-oriented politician or official.
You bring up some interesting points. I'm not remotely familiar with MBS, so this is just pointing out why in general you shouldn't expect a reformer to look like a reformer.
Lincoln by his own words absolutely looked like a bastard who didn't give a damn about slavery, and nevertheless set in motion events to free slaves. And, of course, to get enough popular support, he couldn't be too outwardly anti-slavery. That's inherent in statecraft: to get things to change, you expect to have to play the people who don't want them to change.
And if a reformer is fooling the people whose agenda is to stymie reform, you should expect a less interested third-party to be fooled. So if MBS was a reformer, it shouldn't be surprised that educated people might study him quite carefully and not remotely catch on that he's enacting reforms.
Likewise, it's just as possible he is a total bastard, the MIT students are right, and you're getting suckered.
Again, I haven't read up on MBS at all, this is just a practical reality to keep in mind when you're evaluating a reform-oriented politician or official.
> I don't hear anyone calling for sanctions on Iran
The US president? Israel? The new US national security adviser to the president? An enormous number of existing sanctions currently imposed by the US, EU, and UN?
The US president? Israel? The new US national security adviser to the president? An enormous number of existing sanctions currently imposed by the US, EU, and UN?
> I don't hear anyone calling for sanctions on Iran
You're not listening very hard then.
You're not listening very hard then.
Among liberal circles like hn and MIT,Jesus Christ dude. But appealing to you people is useless because my polite and correct comment gets flagged, flagged for nothing more than offending someone. Iran's influence is overblown? Are you serious? Where are rebels getting their supplies? If Iranian support ceased completely the resistance would dry up and the whole thing would grind to a total and complete stop. Same more or less for saudi Arabia. Iran has committed directly and indirectly heinous terrorist crimes that match or exceed the acts commuted by Saudi/us. This is basically a war between two countries and as has always been true, trying to reduce the thing into a framework of good and evil or right and wrong is a fools errand and an intellectual molestation of the truth.
In actual fact mbs is a force for reform. He is perusing reform both because it is plainly in the best interest of his empire and because this is a trend that goes all the way to the beginning with for example the introduction of television to the masses despite huge resistance from religious bodies. Anyone who claims to favor reform and simultaneously condemns mbs knows nothing about the history or international politics of Saudi Arabia. I have been watching mobs and his behaviour indicates very positive direction indeed. Do your homework. Astoundingly the people at MIT seem to have not done theirs.
In actual fact mbs is a force for reform. He is perusing reform both because it is plainly in the best interest of his empire and because this is a trend that goes all the way to the beginning with for example the introduction of television to the masses despite huge resistance from religious bodies. Anyone who claims to favor reform and simultaneously condemns mbs knows nothing about the history or international politics of Saudi Arabia. I have been watching mobs and his behaviour indicates very positive direction indeed. Do your homework. Astoundingly the people at MIT seem to have not done theirs.
From what i get from american media, they like MBS including the liberal ones (perhaps even more), and they certainly help to paint a positive picture of him as a "radical innovator" of his country, when he brings the lowest of the low hanging fruit such as giving women the right to drive.
I don't know much about the Yemen civil war, but I've heard that Iranian influence is overblown. In any case, even if Iran is behind the other side, what Saudi and the US are doing is unconscionable.
Here's an example of this other take: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/1...
Here's an example of this other take: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/1...
Can dang or someone please unflag my comment? I haven't violated any guidelines and it's important that an opinion be heard that goes against the dominant narrative.
They should have stuck to attacking MBS, and brought up the fact that the 9/11 hijackers had direct support from Saudi diplomatic personnel.
Attacking Apple for providing well above market pay for jobs that rescue chinese laborers from brutal and dangerous rural farm jobs just makes the writer sound entitled.
Attacking Apple for providing well above market pay for jobs that rescue chinese laborers from brutal and dangerous rural farm jobs just makes the writer sound entitled.
Can you please provide more context from the "brutal and dangerous rural farm jobs"? I am aware agriculture production in China is very different then here but even at its most labor intensive times it is not something that I would have considered to be "dangerous".
Farming in general is a dangerous occupation, even in the USA where machinery tends to be reasonably modern and well guarded:
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
I wasn't able to find a source but my understanding is that being a farmer is many times more dangerous on a percentage basis than being a police officer, and that's only counting fatal accidents. I would bet good money that the rate of disfiguring/crippling injury is way higher.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/cfoi.pdf
I wasn't able to find a source but my understanding is that being a farmer is many times more dangerous on a percentage basis than being a police officer, and that's only counting fatal accidents. I would bet good money that the rate of disfiguring/crippling injury is way higher.
I seem to recall reading that farming is comparable statistically to mining, or even more dangerous. It's pretty much among the top most dangerous occupations, at any rate. Which is consistent with how historically people have given up farming to work in the seemingly brutal sweatshops in cities, whether in the US and Europe, or in the Third World.
Anecdotally, my grandfather died some time after being burned in a conflagration related to cleaning something with gasoline, and none of his children became farmers. One daughter went to college and became a computer programmer, another started a delivery business, his son went to work for a VA hospital, and his wife sold the farm and became a nurse after her husband died.
It's hard to imagine conditions that predate your parents' time, and most people at this point are probably more than one generation away from their farming ancestors.
Anecdotally, my grandfather died some time after being burned in a conflagration related to cleaning something with gasoline, and none of his children became farmers. One daughter went to college and became a computer programmer, another started a delivery business, his son went to work for a VA hospital, and his wife sold the farm and became a nurse after her husband died.
It's hard to imagine conditions that predate your parents' time, and most people at this point are probably more than one generation away from their farming ancestors.
The farming industry is a bit dangerous but that includes things not on the farm. Grain Elevators can kill you pretty quick. There are reasons some big ag companies take safety so seriously that standing on an office chair is a fireable offense.
Also, being a police officer, overall, isn’t as deadly as people think. Specific areas are though.
Also, being a police officer, overall, isn’t as deadly as people think. Specific areas are though.
Everything is relative but it’s much more dangerous than assembling iPhones. And it is one of the reasons why whenever Foxcon is hiring the applicant lines are so long.
Can we get a citation for these claims? Otherwise it feels a lot like something one says while rocking themselves to sleep at night. The whole thesis of "Sapiens" is exactly the opposite of this, that "progress" has been mainly a way of making life harder. The idea rural farming is somehow more dangerous than moving to a city and working long hours in a factory seems worthy of some numbers. If you basically learn, "Don't stick your face in the thresher" I feel like farming would be fairly low danger.
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2017/04/the-most-dange...
This cites some numbers from the CDC, looks like in America farms are dangerous, can’t imagine what it’s like in China. It says farmers are 2x as likely as police and 5x as likely as firefighters to die on the job. My intuition is formed from knowing that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, I kind of assumed farming wasn’t so far off.
This cites some numbers from the CDC, looks like in America farms are dangerous, can’t imagine what it’s like in China. It says farmers are 2x as likely as police and 5x as likely as firefighters to die on the job. My intuition is formed from knowing that logging is one of the most dangerous jobs in America, I kind of assumed farming wasn’t so far off.
People did learn "don't stick your face in the thresher" and that's exactly why across cultures and in different time periods since the industrial revolution they migrated to the cities, because even the sweatshops we consider barbaric were better. In school, we learn about how terrible child labor was when it was unregulated, and how children were maimed and died in factories. But child labor was taken for granted on the farm, so of course it wasn't questioned when industrialization came at first. I have a picture of my mom as a little girl on a huge tractor in the 1940s. I didn't grow up on a farm, but her attitude towards power equipment when I was a kid was to tell me to read the manual, whether it was a power mower or a chainsaw or whatever.
I’d suggest that you perform even the most cursory level of research via Google.
In the United States, agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupational categories. Fatality rate is 7x higher than all workers in private industry, and injury rate is 40% higher than all workers. Additionally, exposure to farm chemicals results in long term health effects.
In China, safety standards are poor in agriculture and often unregulated, so no reliable statistics exist. That said, with reduced mechanization and poor working standards, injuries and deaths are likely far higher.
In the United States, agriculture is one of the most dangerous occupational categories. Fatality rate is 7x higher than all workers in private industry, and injury rate is 40% higher than all workers. Additionally, exposure to farm chemicals results in long term health effects.
In China, safety standards are poor in agriculture and often unregulated, so no reliable statistics exist. That said, with reduced mechanization and poor working standards, injuries and deaths are likely far higher.
In China, safety standards are poor in factories also and often unregulated, so no reliable statistics exist. Factories also have dangerous chemicals.
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/inside-chinese-factories/
https://www.wired.com/2015/04/inside-chinese-factories/
And I don’t think Cook has shirked his responsibility and has come out repeatedly to state that they think it is a problem and they’re always working to improve it. That is why amongst the major tech companies they have published supplier responsibility reports regularly. https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/
I must re-iterate my opinion here because of flagging abuse. In the article, mbs's consolidation of power is criticised. This is naive and incorrect. Mbs is in fact a positive force for progress and reform. Detracting him only serves to aid the people of sa and the religious bodies of sa all of whom wish to remain cemented within the traditional and brutal interpretations of the Koran that MIT seems to dislike so much. The rebels and Iran are just as responsible for the innocent deaths as sa and us are. This is difficult to explain in such short form but it is true and if you disagree then you can tell me why instead of flagging my comment. This way I can promptly respond to you and our disagreement can be settled. It's very important for non-mainstream narratives to be heard, especially when they are correct as in this case.
MIT has been first and foremost a government research lab since Conant (an MIT grad) was FDR's wartime science advisor and reformulated the institute (just compare the small size of the student body vs overall research staff, or consider that education brings in only 14% of the institute's revenue). Your education is essentially subsidized by the Pentagon.
The 1970s reforms shuffled the pieces around the board but didn't make a substantive change (they did improve academic freedom, though). Through the 1990s MIT was really more policy rather than corporate focused but now there is more private sector involvement can you really say it's any better?