This individual recommends that society do nothing even though there are other military powers. I don't agree. Edmund Burke had something to say about two centuries ago: “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” Absence of a military means a commitment to doing nothing. If all Americans don't take military funding, the result will not be a nicer world. The result of US society following this advice would be the subjugation of the US, and possibly all western democracies, by other countries. Where possible, militaries should not be used, because violence is a terrible thing... and that is something most military personnel already know. But absence of a military often produces means slaughter by another.<p>In practice, countries only independently exist if (1) they have a military or (2) they have an ally with a military who is willing to use it on their behalf. If a country is unwilling to work out its defense, another country will be happy to take it over.
Theo de Raadt about OpenBSD receiving DARPA funding[0]:<p>> I actually am fairly uncomfortable about it, even if our firm stipulation was that they cannot tell us what to do. We are simply doing what we do anyways - securing software - and they have no say in the matter. I try to convince myself that our grant means a half of a cruise missile doesn't get built.<p>[0]: <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-due-to-anti-war-statements-20030421-gdgmy4.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.smh.com.au/technology/openbsd-loses-funding-due-...</a>
While I don't come to the same conclusion, I think this is a great example of presenting a well reasoned argument for a position that is not widely held. I would love to see more debate over topics like this they doesn't resort to name calling, straw man arguments and all or nothing conclusions.
One thing I thing that is worth considering regarding whether or not to accept DoD funding is what kind of research/end goal it supports. Many research projects seek to improve the precision of lethal actions or the quality of intelligence that informs those actions ie In WWII if the only blunt tool you had hit the enemy was carpet bombing their cities that contained production facilities or government officials, then that's what we did, but with the advent of precision-guided munitions we have the opportunity to limit civilian collateral when striking targets. Similarly, if there was a technology that allowed us to see through walls to see if armed bad guys were on the other side, we could avoid pre-emptively clearing the room with a flash-bang or grenade when it instead housed a family. Certainly, most weapons can be turned into tools of malfeasance, so we shouldn't assume that any advancement will result in lowering the human cost of conflict, but if you accept that violence will happen whether or participate in it or not, some may choose to add scientific knowledge that could make that violence more humane/limited.
<i>>, after completing my PhD thesis on cognitive maps, I found that the only funding agency that was interested in supporting my research wanted to build smart cruise missiles that could find their way to their targets. This was not what I wanted my life's work to support.</i><p>But if the military really really wanted to, couldn't it just "launder" their funding via "worthy humanitarian" causes?<p>The government could find a more socially palatable institution (or possibly create one from scratch) and funnels the research money through that. The unknowing scientist then thinks his cognitive maps is fighting cancer cells or detecting crime but in reality, it's going to ultimately end up in a cruise missile. Like a lot of <i>basic research</i>, the knowledge can be <i>legitimately</i> applied to humanitarian purposes so those laundering schemes are not a total fiction in terms of <i>beneficial results for society</i>. It's impossible to disentangle good-vs-evil uses of knowledge or technology.<p>I'm not trying to dissuade anyone from abandoning their principles but I think the government can invent clever ways of disguising their goals. E.g. A mechanical engineer that wouldn't work on exoskeletons for Army soldiers to help kill people but would feel ethically ok with funding from a charity[0] to help paraplegics gain freedom of movement. Since the scientist can't know the provenance of all funds, maybe he's still helping the Army after all.<p>[0] e.g.: <a href="https://www.unitedspinal.org/" rel="nofollow">https://www.unitedspinal.org/</a>
I'd like to propose a counter to the "military==evil" argument. Specifically<p>> "I believe that non-violent methods of conflict resolution provide the only methods for protecting our country against the deadly threats we face in the long run. "<p>Western free society is a hierarchical entity, much like a tech stack. While in tech, the lowest foundation layer is hardware, it is "security" for civil society. The fact is that the rest of society completely collapses if people, companies, and civil structure cease to be secure. History, statistics & a scientific analysis of conflict provides strong evidence for the reliance on military might for building layers of civilization over it.<p>It is disingenuous to state, as the author has, that this is fully and completely achievable without a military, or use of force. It is also appalling, that while the author's day job is rooted in evidence, science & peer-review, those principles have been ignored in deriving his "truths" about civil society.<p>What we <i>should</i> be concerned about is the misuse of military power. The way the US is setup, military/executive branch are a lot more accountable to it's citizens than other structures of governance. It allows law-makers (who represent the electorate) to tweak or check abuse and while this may NOT be perfect, it certainly forms the foundation for betterment.
I suspect you have to read between the lines here.<p>Kuipers says that "the goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence", but of course, as someone of far above average intelligence, he understands that if you have no military, then (1) a hostile, belligerent foreign power has no incentive to use the tools of peaceful conflict resolution with you no matter how available they are and (2) your sovereignty may well succumb to violence.<p>Rather, I suspect, what he really means here is that the goal of the <i>American</i> military is to settle <i>other countries'</i> international conflicts through violence, participating in conflicts in which the USA is not even remotely under attack.<p>If you believe such a thing, then you have a rationally founded reason to refuse military funding <i>of USA origin</i>.
Suspending judgement on this individual's stance, it's refreshing to see someone that is basing their actions on clearly articulated principles.
Many of the reasons he stated can also be applied to VC funding:<p>> One thing that makes the slope so slippery is that you have accumulated responsibility for a lab full of graduate students, and the consequences of a major drop in funding will be even more painful for them than it is for you.
"The goal of the military is to settle international conflict through violence."<p>That is misleading. The <i>purpose</i> of the military is to safeguard the interests of our country through its presence and--if necessary--decisive violence. No US military leader <i>wants</i> to fight a war; that notion is absurd.<p>Don't confuse the desires of the military with the occasional desires of its civilian leadership.
The United States could certainly be less war-happy, in my opinion, but what happens if some group decides to declare war on another, or commit atrocities, and absolutely refuses to negotiate? Or what if negotiations take months or years, and more human lives are lost in that time than would be through war?<p>I'm not saying that most or even a significant fraction of the US's wars up until this point have been justified, but professor Kuipers seems to be of the opinion that violence should <i>never</i> be used to settle international conflicts.
Or one could do the Chomsky thing and take military funding and use it for research that doesn't actually have clear military applications but looks like it might.
Ben Kuipers (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Kuipers</a>, <a href="http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/" rel="nofollow">http://web.eecs.umich.edu/~kuipers/</a>) is an incredibly nice man and good professor, and while I was at UT Austin he was the department chairman at least once. I never took a class from him and I don't even have any funny or embarrassing stories about him. In person, he's sounds very much like he writes here.
Also relevant:<p><a href="https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-parts-ways-with-maker-fair-over-darpa-grant" rel="nofollow">https://slashdot.org/story/12/04/03/1656224/mitch-altman-par...</a><p>This is a principled stance, and one I vehemently agree with. I wish more in our line of work would so actively reject associating with those who deal in violence (whether “justified” or not).
Perhaps we need to distinguish, if at all possible these days, between the military and the military industrial complex. I don't believe the military is inherently evil but think it's necessary to the defense of the country. The military industrial complex, on the other hand, is in the business of warfare and perhaps not as necessary as we might think.
It's just a matter of time before technology is used to the worst and best of it's capabilities... Someone will always be there to take the money, but I applaud you, sir.
A good discussion from 2016: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11478951" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11478951</a>
I am genuinely curious as to the author’s proposed non-violent means of settling with Al Queda et al, but he doesn’t go into any details. If you listened to OBL’s speech after 9/11 what he was most upset about was the downfall of the Caliphate in Turkey some 80 years previous. Similarly ISIS mission was to provoke a war with “Rome” to fulfill the prophecy of the 13th Imam (I may be hazy on the details). There’s literally no peaceful solution that any Western government could offer them.
Refusing to take military funding does not prevent war, or even make it significantly harder to prosecute such that there will be fewer wars. You cannot induce some sort safe stalemate by not accepting military funding. This no-military-funding meme prevalent in tech circles is virtue signaling writ large.<p>War happens when leaders choose to go to war. Technology does not <i>directly</i> lead to new wars.
There will always be actors willing to take, by force, whatever they can from those who are unable to defend themselves. History did not "end" when the USSR collapsed.
> Military action, with its inevitable consequences to civilian populations, creates and fuels deadly threats, and therefore increases the danger that our country faces.<p>Wrong. The United States is inexorably in conflict nations whose domestic policy failures cause them to act in often violent ways that threaten US interests. If academia adopted Kuipers' position we would be no closer to peace, and much closer to living under another country's tyranny. Ask the people of Tibet as just one example.