[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.
jacob at appelbaum.net
Thu Apr 5 00:36:19 UTC 2012
On 04/04/2012 03:08 PM, Matt Joyce wrote:
> First of all it's obvious we're coming at this from different
> directions. As my friend Ari would say, "how awesome is that?"
Yes, I'm happy to take a stand and make value judgments. I am happy to
assert that I feel uncomfortable with trying to understand the full context.
> I am not going to get into a discussion regarding the wars in Iraq
> or Afghanistan. I think no one disagrees about the questionable
> status of these events and certainly no one is going to argue that the
> DOD in general isn't geared to draw blood when requested. And that's
> sort of the point. ROE and being in those theaters are created with
> political oversight and approval. As Reagan ( hehe ) used to say...
> the buck stops here.
You're avoiding some of the most important events of the last decade
that are related to the fruits of DARPA's labor, amongst others.
> I think it's important to remember that the people out there in
> those war zones are there because an elected official put them there.
> And that counts for a lot. We can argue over just how much till the
> cows come home. It's not the point at all.
So we should remember that it is legitimate but ignore that many feel
that it isn't actually legit? Right...
> I think ultimately we both agree that what is at question here is
> the ethics of accepting DARPA funding. Yes the specific nature of the
> grant and all that can be discussed but the general framework of the
> discussion is geared to answer a question on ethics. What I think is
> vital to this discussion is the definition of what that question is.
> Yes, ethics are incredibly important as a component to STEM in any
> situation be it as a kid being taught, or as a professional in their
> career. This stuff matters. But how do hackerspaces and hackers want
> to approach the framework.
> I don't necessarily believe that DARPA funding is a necessarily
> evil thing or a necessary evil either. I think it exists and will
> stand or fall on its own merits per evaluation. Life is fluid.
> What's important is that we build a methodology that's efficient at
> evaluating ANYTHING be it DARPA or PETA related assistance. Many
> hackerspaces have struggled with accepting assistance from a wide
> variety of arenas... and many of the issues aren't ethical. But
> DARPA specifically piques interest because it is a moral quandary for
> each of us. I believe the focus in this discussion should be there.
> And I'm definitely of the opinion we all have differing opinions and
> experiences that can help shape that discussion for the better.
> That's been my point from the beginning. And why this is in privmsg
> and not on list.
This email was on the list - it isn't much of a discussion if it's in
private, please keep it on the list.
Are you going to agree about the mission of DARPA already or what?
All the best,
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss