How to Decrease the Chances of Total Destruction
James E Heliotis
There is something that we, as computer scientists, can do to slow down
the technology of death, and to voice our protest. We can refuse research
funding from the military (e.g., ARPA).
Enough Said.
Jim Heliotis
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!ritcv!jeh
rocksvax!ritcv!jeh
ritcv!jeh@Rochester
Jim Heliotis
Sorry, but I just cannot agree with you on that.
First of all, if the military is foolish enough to fund you on research
that ends up doing them no good, you have actually helped the cause of
humanity by taking their money.
On the other hand, if you don't accept their money, someone else will,
and all he has to do is read your publications and pick up where you
left off, so, are we ahead or worse off?
I also think you might be a little less inclined to take this step
if you worked at an institution that depended more heavily on
government grants, such as where I am a student. It's easy to
renounce ARPA when your salary comes from tuition and private
contributions.
Yes, "it's" SHOULD be spelled with the apostrophe here.
rochester!heliotis
heli...@rochester.uucp
Relay-Version:version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site duke.UUCP
Posting-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site rochester.UUCP
Path:duke!decvax!genrad!security!linus!philabs!seismo!rochester!heliotis
Message-ID:<39...@rochester.UUCP>
Date:Fri, 25-Nov-83 19:52:46 EST
Organization:U. of Rochester, CS Dept.
Mike Kelly
"There is something that we, as computer scientists, can do to slow down
the technology of death, and to voice our protest. We can refuse research
funding from the military (e.g., ARPA)."
Right on, Jim! But wait until you see the stream of rationalizations
that come streaming in from all the nuke researchers and military
software engineers. Reminds me of a line from the recent film, "The
Big Chill". One character suggests that rationalizations are more important
than sex. "Ever try to go a week without a rationalization?" he asks.
What about it, military researchers? Ever try that?
Mike Kelly
tty3b!mjk
we...@pyuxa.uucp
life easier for the rest of us as we can then dismiss it as
the ravings of those who don't live in the real world. I too
made pronouncements from the lofty heights thinking I was the
holder of the true word. Funny, though, it all went away once
I had to feed myself.
pyuxa!wetcw
Chris Hibbert
First of all, if the military is foolish enough to fund you on
research that ends up doing them no good, you have actually
helped the cause of humanity by taking their money.
The problem with this is that "they" is all of the taxpayers including
you and me. You may want to recast this statement in terms of the
Military having a set amount of money taken from the general thieving
of the IRS, in which case, anything you spend that doesn't promote the
military hurts our Department of War. Or, you may want to remember
that whatever you take from the government is stolen money, and someone
somewhere is poorer because of it.
Mike Kelly
from military researchers "rationalizations" (since it tends to
denounce anything they say in advance). I didn't mean to dis-
courage military researchers from contributing. Several friends
of mine from school are now working at Lawrence Livermore Labs in
California (one of the major nuclear weapons R&D sites), and most
of their responses to me are simple rationalizations: "wouldn't
you rather have me doing this than some real nut?" "If I don't
do it, someone else will.", etc.
I guess I've just come to expect this from military researchers.
I don't doubt that some truly believe in what they're doing. But
I also know many do not, and it puzzles me that they continue
in this kind of work when there are so many jobs available in CS
and EE that are not directly military-related.
I know that 'everything is military related'; that's what happens
when you run a war economy, as we do in the U.S. But there's an
important message in explicitly refusing to work directly for the
military and stating WHY you are refusing the job. Furthermore,
that's not unilateral disarmament. It's taking direct action to
help slow down the arms race.
Mike Kelly
..!ihnp4!tty3b!mjk
Greg Skinner
I don't doubt that some truly believe in what they're doing. But
I also know many do not, and it puzzles me that they continue
in this kind of work when there are so many jobs available in CS
and EE that are not directly military-related.
As I said in a previous article, there are some of us (like myself) who
find that they must work in government-related industry on
government-sponsored projects because their interests lie in areas which
are sponsored only by the government. True, there are lots of
opportunities in EE/CS that are not directly military-related, but they
do not necessarily fall into the scope of interests of these people who
tend towards military-related research jobs. As I was telling a friend
of mine one day, it's a shame that private companies do not fund
communications research as much as the government does, 'cause I want to
do communications research and the only people who seem to be doing it
now are the military.
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
GDS@XX (arpa)
bit...@ucbtopaz.cc.berkeley.arpa
>Right on, Jim! But wait until you see the stream of
>rationalizations that come streaming in from all the nuke
>from the recent film, "The Big Chill". One character suggests that
>rationalizations are more important than sex. "Ever try to go a
>week without a rationalization?" he asks. What about it, military
>researchers? Ever try that?
This is a simple "McCarthyism" to preempt debate. You assume that
whatever group is "bad" (military researchers?), then suggest that any
response from this group will be "rationalizations" (or somehow,
invalid) because they have a vested interest in being in that
group. So, e.g., the pope can't talk about Catholicism, or, at
least, we should a priori dismiss anything he has to say on the
subject, because of his vested interest in the subject ("just wait
'til the pope comes back with some preachy platitude about...").
As a simple student (with no income from any defense-related
activity--is that a prerequisite for you to listen to me, Mike?),
I see unilateral disarmament as ineffective and, quite possibly,
dangerous. That's my current opinion, but I see no reason to
prejudge any arguments to the contrary, or to try to discourage
responses (isn't "open discussion" a reason for having the net?).
Nor do I view military research, per se, as "bad". You are welcome
to express a different opinion, Mike; I just wish you wouldn't be
so self-righteous about it.
Sam Hall
{decvax}!ucbvax!bitmap@ucbtopaz
"Now just wait until Mike Kelly or his ilk comes back with some
asinine, sneering remark", right?
T C Wheeler
there at MIT, but you better start questioning them about what's going
on out here in the real world. When you say that only the military seems
to be funding communications projects, You have it backwards. There is
more money going into this type of research in the private sector than
ever before in history. Check out Bell Labs, Western Electric, Western
Union, ITT, Northern Telcom, IBM, and literally hundreds of other firms
from one end of this country to the other.
There has been an explosion in this industry. With the breakup of the Bell
System, everyone is poised to get into the act. Look at MCI, Southern
Pacific, and GTE for starters. The military is an after the fact user
of many of the systems being developed for commercial use. Don't worry
about not being able to find a place in the communications industry that
does not accept military funding for communications research. Most of
this type work is funded through the private sector. The military usually
gets involved only after a particular system has been developed and they
want one too.
Granted, the military does fund some communications research, however,
that funding is a drop in the bucket compared to what the private
sector is doing. Take a look at the New York Times Business Section
on any given Sunday. I would venture that at least 30% of the ads are
for comunications types, not conected with military spending.
T. C. Wheeler
Gray Mike
. . . As I was telling a friend
of mine one day, it's a shame that private companies do not fund
communications research as much as the government does, 'cause I want to
do communications research and the only people who seem to be doing it
now are the military.
--greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
GDS@XX (arpa)
Ever heard of Bell Telephone Laboratories? Mike Gray, BTL, WH.
Greg Skinner
***
Mayhaps I should clarify my earlier statement. The private sector does
indeed participate in *communications* more than the military does, but
not in communications *research*. I think that the people who work for
companies that are funded by the government are interested in developing
new techniques in communications, rather than developing random mail
systems or taking old ideas and integrating them in different contexts.
The companies you mentioned seem to do the latter.
---greg
...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!gds
...ihnp4!mit-eddie!gds (uucp)
gds%mit-eddie@mit-mc (arpa)