[Noisebridge-discuss] Sigh -- I'm not helping with Maker Faires this year.
matt at nycresistor.com
Tue Apr 3 15:03:50 PDT 2012
The instated goal in your proposed hypothetical scenario is to force a
bias that did not exist before into Makerfaire. As an intellectual I
would be concerned with the criteria of that bias. This hasn't been
discussed in specificity anywhere today by anyone.
It kind of makes debate in this arena pointless.
On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> wrote:
> bandit writes:
>> An absolute refusal to associate oneself with anything tainted by
>> the military also leads to the refusal to have anything to do with
>> technology transfer from military use to civilian use. The medical
>> advances alone are reason enough for tech transfer - think of the
>> blood clotting bandages as a zen-like example.
> We could also distinguish between "working on things that are receiving
> military funding (now)" and "using knowledge or technology that were
> developed with military funding". I think people in this thread haven't
> made this distinction this way when they've referred to things like the
> Internet that were created through military funding.
> Here's one way this distinction could be useful: someone with a lot of
> colleagues or customers who object to military involvement could
> plausibly be influenced to decline it because of their objections, but
> someone doing research with a lot of future applications can't really
> hear from prospective users who object to the military role, nor can
> those prospective users make a very credible commitment as a group
> today to boycott the applications in the future.
> If the Maker Faire organizers hear "hey, a couple of awesome hackers
> who were great contributors to the Faire, and some attendees, have a
> problem with this thing", that's a clear, immediate concern for them.
> By contrast, if someone hears "hey, a couple of awesome hackers are
> boycotting GPS, the Internet, and cyanoacrylate glues because they
> have a problem with where they came from", it creates a pretty diffuse
> concern that some unidentified people _might_ also boycott the
> still-unknown fruits of some current research far in the future.
> One way of summing this up is that boycotts are probably more
> effective and credible when they target ongoing behaviors that the
> boycott participants object to, rather than trying to punish past
> objectionable behavior in terrorem. But I'm not claiming a general
> theory of what makes boycotts tactically or ethically appropriate.
> Seth David Schoen <schoen at loyalty.org> | No haiku patents
> http://www.loyalty.org/~schoen/ | means I've no incentive to
> FD9A6AA28193A9F03D4BF4ADC11B36DC9C7DD150 | -- Don Marti
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
More information about the Noisebridge-discuss