Scientists/Engineers and Moral Responsibility?

[Enne]

In the wake of the current economy, me and a lot of my classmates / graduating seniors have noticed that there isn't much job wise for engineering students outside of defense/military contracting work. It made me wonder about the impact that people in the sciences have on the world, like the results of their work and such.

So basically what I'm asking is, do you think it's wrong for someone with a degree/specific knowledge in these areas use their work to further wars and other vehicles of misery and woe, or is that the problem of administrators? I'm not just talking engineering in particular here, I mean anything from whether or not physicians should engage in medical procedures that question ethics (like abortion, etc), and also work done by physical scientists in respect to weapons making and the like. It's not really an 'American' workers question as much as it is a question about your beliefs surrounding the social impact of the work of scientists. Do we owe it to the world to self monitor and avoid creating for destruction? Or should the responsibilities lie with those who use what is created for their benefit?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I am of the opinion that scientist/researchers etc. should at least be aware of the consequences and make the judgement as to whether or not the positive potential of their work outweighs the negative. While I love the concept of discovery for discovery's sake, there's more than a lifetime's worth of discoveries out there that won't end up being used (inadvertantly or not) to blow up some kid in a mud hut.

If the self serving reason of 'I need the job' comes into the decision making process, I tend to look at it as akin to the 'I was just following orders' excuse. Some scientists get so absorbed in their work that they can't comprehend the consequences though. So it is hard to say they are obligated to police themselves but they really ought to police themselves.

 

[del]

Everyone has a moral responsibility to the social impacts of their work, scientist or not.

 

[juturna]

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. The scientists at GE do "pure research" without any moral qualms. Major consequences.

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Scientists don't make problems, they solve them.

One man's labour saving device is another man's weapon.

Apparently human nature is the greatest problem of all.

I suppose in the end the scientists always get the last laugh

 

[Enne]

Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. The scientists at GE do "pure research" without any moral qualms. Major consequences.

Was that the one w/ grandfalloons and Ice9?

 

[Razare]

So basically what I'm asking is, do you think it's wrong for someone with a degree/specific knowledge in these areas use their work to further wars and other vehicles of misery and woe, or is that the problem of administrators?

How many major wars have occurred between established, powerful nations since the creation of atomic weaponry?

I'm not saying it's moral or immoral, just there's a whole other perspective to take on it. Ideally weapons enforce peace, rather than instigate death. Also, living on a rifle range I can tell you, people kill people, not the tools they use to do it. Trying to assign blame to the manufacturer is silly unless you're talking about something as destructive as atomic weaponry.

I think if you're a realistic, there's really no moral issue to resolve in taking military work. For an idealist, it could be an issue.

 

[Enne]

How many major wars have occurred between established, powerful nations since the creation of atomic weaponry?

I'm not saying it's moral or immoral, just there's a whole other perspective to take on it. Ideally weapons enforce peace, rather than instigate death. Also, living on a rifle range I can tell you, people kill people, not the tools they use to do it. Trying to assign blame to the manufacturer is silly unless you're talking about something as destructive as atomic weaponry.

I think if you're a realistic, there's really no moral issue to resolve in taking military work. For an idealist, it could be an issue.

I am talking about something as destructive as atomic weaponry. I don't think that the manufacturers exert some absolute control, I'm thinking / talking more in terms of the fact that scientists get too little say (considering the fact that they are the catalytic portion of the process) in what they design and create. I've learnt from gun control debates that at the end of the day, you'd need to change the people and the social constructs that they live in to make any significant, lasting change, regardless of what weapons are at hand. The biggest issue that I'd have in taking any work is how much say I'd get over what I'm designing in the first place.

 

[Sugarpop]

How many major wars have occurred between established, powerful nations since the creation of atomic weaponry?

I'm not saying it's moral or immoral, just there's a whole other perspective to take on it. Ideally weapons enforce peace, rather than instigate death. Also, living on a rifle range I can tell you, people kill people, not the tools they use to do it. Trying to assign blame to the manufacturer is silly unless you're talking about something as destructive as atomic weaponry.

On the other hand, the world has been very close to nuclear armageddon on several occasions. Don't you think that killing in an everyday situation is way easier, and requires less planning if you have advanced weapons at hand?

I don't see what you mean by that last sentence. Are manufacturers only culpable if the potential bodycount is high enough?

 

[Oblivious]

The TF2 Sniper said it best.

"As long as there are two people left on the planet, somebody's going to want somebody dead."

So... why not make a few dollars off of it?

 

[Sapphire Harp]

From what I have read of upcoming military technologies and science fiction, the next wave of desired discoveries aren't greater and more powerful WMDs... not so much anyway. The focus of development seems to be on precision, utility, and automation...

Essentially, the militaries want to be able to have a perfectly specific weapon available for every job - ideally used with smaller and smaller amounts of risk for the wielder and fewer chances of collateral and side effects... I think maybe slightly more than half of the time, a military is aware of its interests enough to act responsibly - as long as it's in their interests and is convenient enough...

This is the impulse behind the development of tasers, blinding & deafening weapons, those new pain rays, etc... Troops and police will have lethal weapons, dangerous weapons, and painful (but not harmful) weapons to disable or drive off... depending on the situation.

The ethical question is, of course, how these things are going to be used... The fear is that these new weapons with minimal risk of injury will grow to be used casually often because there won't ever be any consequences...

I can tell you, the tool that police would like to have is a point and shoot device that just turns people off for a while. The target would just stop moving, thinking, and doing... and either fall over or just sit there while the officers move in and figure out what is going on... and what to do about it. That device could be abused. too, of course... but it would probably prevent a great number of injuries and deaths that occur in policing today...

I can't imagine you'll find a blanket ethical answer for this situation... probably all you can do is look at who you would work for and what they intend to do and see if you're comfortable with it... If it's a company that specializes in fulfilling the wishes of Africa's dictators or the Bush administration... I'd pass, myself.

Of course, you'll probably never be presented a choice with clearly apparent ethical ramifications...
​

 

[walfin]

"As long as there are two people left on the planet, somebody's going to want somebody dead."

Wrong :P. Hetero-man+Hetero-woman or Gay+gay/Lesbian+lesbian = sex.

Essentially, the militaries want to be able to have a perfectly specific weapon available for every job - ideally used with smaller and smaller amounts of risk for the wielder and fewer chances of collateral and side effects...

Well that's being morally responsible isn't it.

If you're preventing the deaths of innocent people I don't see how it could be bad. Of course it'd mean that governments might be more willing to use these weapons more often if they didn't have to consider collateral damage. But it's not as if they won't use weapons that cause collateral damage anyway.

I like the idea of the on-off switch gun. Isn't that PHaSR?

 

[Sapphire Harp]

Well that's being morally responsible isn't it.

If you're preventing the deaths of innocent people I don't see how it could be bad. Of course it'd mean that governments might be more willing to use these weapons more often if they didn't have to consider collateral damage. But it's not as if they won't use weapons that cause collateral damage anyway.

The current use of tasers is an imperfect step in the direction they would like to head... With side effects like enormous amounts of pain, rare cases of lethal effect in less healthy individuals... and much more frequent, casual, and excessive use of them.

Was the rise of tasering by police an increase in the humanity and benevolence of police enforcement in this country? I'd guess so, but I wouldn't say the conclusion is definitely clear - not by a long shot...
​

I like the idea of the on-off switch gun. Isn't that PHaSR?

That's also getting there, as it certainly achieves temporary blindness in the target, hopefully without making it permanent... but it doesn't necessarily prevent any response by the target.

I didn't realize it at the time, but I was thinking of something like the phasers of Star Trek, The Next Generation - set to stun, of course. No pain, no injury, just unconsciousness (plus whatever happens when they fall over.) The perfect solution might even remove that falling over bit.
​

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

I didn't realize it at the time, but I was thinking of something like the phasers of Star Trek, The Next Generation - set to stun, of course. No pain, no injury, just unconsciousness (plus whatever happens when they fall over.) The perfect solution might even remove that falling over bit.

Well, what the good ol' US Air Force wants to try out (on American citizens for testing puposes) is a microwave weopon that is supposed to be non-lethal. Real pleasant sounding.....

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14806772/

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Is that the laser thingy that vaporises the uppermost layer of skin and/or clothing in order to create a small explosion on the target's surface, thereby having a concussive effect?

That thing's been in development for years... and I want one.

 

[EloquentBohemian]

Are we humans the only species on this planet, or the only species in the universe for that matter, which effectively contrives and stockpiles multiple avenues to our own genocide?

 

[Inappropriate Behavior]

Are we humans the only species on this planet, or the only species in the universe for that matter, which effectively contrives and stockpiles multiple avenues to our own genocide?

Lemmings

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Gee I hope not, nukes are made to be shared.

 

[walfin]

Are we humans the only species on this planet, or the only species in the universe for that matter, which effectively contrives and stockpiles multiple avenues to our own genocide?

Hey, it's said that chimps fight wars. Their weapons are just a little more primitive. And that's not better, generally deaths are more painful.

And FWIW, I think it's horrible to be concussed by microwaves. It's like...microwaves. Humans are not food. Or at least, they're not supposed to be, not in America.

 

[snowqueen]

How about this for a non-lethal weapon!!!!

 

[Artifice Orisit]

How about this for a non-lethal weapon!!!!

Excuse me, I'm just going down to the grocery store to pick up some ingredients.
...
I'll be back.

 

[Sapphire Harp]

I was thinking about this a bit more and I forgot to post about the large scale ethical implications of the advance of non-lethal weapons... I think western society is rapidly moving to a place where public dissent is completely optional for governments...

It used to be that dispersing a protest was a risky option, definitely chancing deaths and entrenching the dissent even further... With the growing advance of crowd control, in theory, any public gathering which was not approved of can simply be scattered without injury... which definitely takes away one of the traditional rallying points of dissent...

Regimes and authorities have longed dreamed of having ways to simply brush aside challenges to their rule without consequence... and now I think the dream is entering reality. What that means for people living under the power of authorities is yet to be seen...

While an individual could make a choice not to help further this progression, can they really do anything to stop it? Perhaps research how to negate some of the abilities governments are gaining?

* * * * *
​

Also, I found the old article about the pain rays that I was thinking of, which should give this discussion another solid example to perch on... I'm including the picture because of the guy's face...
​

"Where do I put my finger? There ... OK? Nothing's happening ... is it on?"

"Yes, it's on. Move your finger a bit closer."

"Er ... ow! OW!" Not good. I try again. "OWWW!" I pull my hand away sharpish. My finger is throbbing, but seems undamaged.

I was told people can take it for a second, maximum. No way, not for a wimp like me.

I try it again. It is a bit like touching a red-hot wire, but there is no heat, only the sensation of heat. There is no burn mark or blister.
Its makers claim this infernal machine is the modern face of warfare. It has a nice, friendly sounding name, Silent Guardian.

I am told not to call it a ray-gun, though that is precisely what it is (the term "pain gun" is maybe better, but I suppose they would like that even less).
​

​

Silent Guardian is making waves in defence circles. Built by the U.S. firm Raytheon, it is part of its "Directed Energy Solutions" programme.

What it amounts to is a way of making people run away, very fast, without killing or even permanently harming them. That is what the company says, anyway. The reality may turn out to be more horrific.

I tested a table-top demonstration model, but here's how it works in the field.

A square transmitter as big as a plasma TV screen is mounted on the back of a Jeep. When turned on, it emits an invisible, focused beam of radiation - similar to the microwaves in a domestic cooker - that are tuned to a precise frequency to stimulate human nerve endings. It can throw a wave of agony nearly half a mile.

Because the beam penetrates skin only to a depth of 1/64th of an inch, it cannot, says Raytheon, cause visible, permanent injury. But anyone in the beam's path will feel, over their entire body, the agonising sensation I've just felt on my fingertip. The prospect doesn't bear thinking about.

"I have been in front of the full-sized system and, believe me, you just run. You don't have time to think about it - you just run," says George Svitak, a Raytheon executive. In tests, even the most hardened Marines flee after a few seconds of exposure. It just isn't possible to tough it out.

This machine has the ability to inflict limitless, unbearable pain.
What makes it OK, says Raytheon, is that the pain stops as soon as you are out of the beam or the machine is turned off.

Silent Guardian and the Taser are just the first in a new wave of "non-lethal" weaponry being developed, mostly in the U.S. These include not only microwave ray-guns, but the terrifying Pulsed Energy Projectile weapon. This uses a powerful laser which, when it hits someone up to 11/2 miles away, produces a "plasma" - a bubble of superhot gas - on the skin.

A report in New Scientist claimed the focus of research was to heighten the pain caused by this semi-classified weapon. And a document released under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act talks of "optimal pulse parameters to evoke peak nociceptor activation" - i.e. cause the maximum agony possible, leaving no permanent damage.
​

Not sure which of the two devices this is talking about, from another article:
​

Transmitted at the speed of light over a 700 yard distance, the Pain Ray is a millimeter-wave beam that penetrates 1/64th of an inch beneath the skin, causing the water molecules there to bubble, producing an intense burning sensation, said to feel like being burnt by molten lava or a hot iron. Its delivery system attached to a Humvee and aimed right, the Pain Ray makes people run away -- fast.
​

Also, an interesting note from yet another article on it these devices:
​

But the military still can't shake fears about ADS, as Hamblingso ably noted last month. As Hambling put it, "the big problem is not with the technology, which seems to work fine. The problem is getting people to accept it. Everyone is still worried the millimeter-wave beam is going to give them cancer, melt their eyeballs or make them sterile...​

 

[Artifice Orisit]

Is that the laser thingy that vaporises the uppermost layer of skin and/or clothing in order to create a small explosion on the target's surface, thereby having a concussive effect?
That thing's been in development for years... and I want one.

the terrifying Pulsed Energy Projectile weapon. This uses a powerful laser which, when it hits someone up to 11/2 miles away, produces a "plasma" - a bubble of superhot gas - on the skin.

I still want one.

 

[snowqueen]

@Sapph - your point about governments using these weapons for crowd control is well made and thought-provoking.

I think Cog is right - we need one so when our governments become rogue, we can aim it at them and keep them under house arrest.