/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11384047
just take the Ed Teller approach

Nuclear weapons have brought more peace than anything

>>11384047
weapons are just ways to test new technology. Nukes weren't originally weapons, just a "bomb" was the only way to test it.

>>11384047
War is brutal and inevitable therefore it is moral to greater weapons of which to end or deter it

amount of deaths from conflict is much lower than before the times nuclear weapons were invented
/thread

>>11384047
>moral?
Not science

>>11384079
>>11384393
>>11384560
>nukes prevent war
really?

>>11384591
Do you know literally anything about world history post 1945?

>>11384591
Yeah it's almost like people don't want to get nuked

>>11384595
>>11384603
Ah yes, as every student of history knows there hasn't been a single death in war since Hitler shot himself in that bunker.

>>11384608
(You)

>>11384047
Institutionalize military people as clinically insane and nobody invents weapons anymore, and nobody distracts smarties with that retarded stuff they are too good for.

>>11384047
If it's not you, it's the other guy. Is hoping other people are as moral as you, moral, or just stupid?

>>11384608
Observe movement of borders in civilized nations now, as opposed to before Hiroshima. This is the peace brought about by nuclear arms.

>>11384791
All I have observed in the past decade is the movement of large groups of refugees trying to escape the peace brought about be nuclear arms.

>>11385014
name one point in history there were no refugees or people mass migrating

>>11385014
the refugee crisis has exactly 0% to do with nuclear weapons

>>11384047
If it is immoral, you might as well become an anprim. Since the industrial system is an interconnected system, the "bad" parts of technology cannot be separated from the "good" parts, and thus any technological advances that occur have the potential to indirectly create new, more powerful weapons. You might as well tear down all of technology entirely and return to nature.

>>11385014
you're right, before that peace those people would have been slaughtered or starved to death because everyone had tightly closed borders and purely nationalistic interests

THE ‘BAD’ PARTS OF TECHNOLOGY CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE ‘GOOD’ PARTS

121. A further reason why industrial society cannot be reformed in favor of freedom is that modern technology is a unified system in which all parts are dependent on one another. You can’t get rid of the “bad” parts of technology and retain only the “good” parts. Take modern medicine, for example. Progress in medical science depends on progress in chemistry, physics, biology, computer science and other fields. Advanced medical treatments require expensive, high-tech equipment that can be made available only by a technologically progressive, economically rich society. Clearly you can’t have much progress in medicine without the whole technological system and everything that goes with it.

122. Even if medical progress could be maintained without the rest of the technological system, it would by itself bring certain evils. Suppose for example that a cure for diabetes is discovered. People with a genetic tendency to diabetes will then be able to survive and reproduce as well as anyone else. Natural selection against genes for diabetes will cease and such genes will spread throughout the population. (This may be occurring to some extent already, since diabetes, while not curable, can be controlled through use of insulin.) The same thing will happen with many other diseases susceptibility to which is affected by genetic degradation of the population. The only solution will be some sort of eugenics program or extensive genetic engineering of human beings, so that man in the future will no longer be a creation of nature, or of chance, or of God (depending on your religious or philosophical opinions), but a manufactured product.

123. If you think that big government interferes in your life too much NOW, just wait till the government starts regulating the genetic constitution of your children. Such regulation will inevitably follow the introduction of genetic engineering of human beings, because the consequences of unregulated genetic engineering would be disastrous. [19]

124. The usual response to such concerns is to talk about “medical ethics.” But a code of ethics would not serve to protect freedom in the face of medical progress; it would only make matters worse. A code of ethics applicable to genetic engineering would be in effect a means of regulating the genetic constitution of human beings. Somebody (probably the upper-middle class, mostly) would decide that such and such applications of genetic engineering were “ethical” and others were not, so that in effect they would be imposing their own values on the genetic constitution of the population at large. Even if a code of ethics were chosen on a completely democratic basis, the majority would be imposing their own values on any minorities who might have a different idea of what constituted an “ethical” use of genetic engineering. The only code of ethics that would truly protect freedom would be one that prohibited ANY genetic engineering of human beings, and you can be sure that no such code will ever be applied in a technological society. No code that reduced genetic engineering to a minor role could stand up for long, because the temptation presented by the immense power of biotechnology would be irresistible, especially since to the majority of people many of its applications will seem obviously and unequivocally good (eliminating physical and mental diseases, giving people the abilities they need to get along in today’s world). Inevitably, genetic engineering will be used extensively, but only in ways consistent with the needs of the industrial- technological system. [20]

>>11385050
>>11385054
>projecting my (((tranny))) insecurities and inability to connect onto entire civilization
t. Ed fc