Slashdot Mirror
American Science: Addicted to Pentagon Cash?
An anonymous submitter writes: "In totalitarian states the military can compel scientists to perform research for weapons systems. That's not true in the United States, yet American scientists who refuse military work are exceedingly rare today. This may be in part because scientists, like most other citizens, agree that the U.S. is facing dangerous foes. But some dissidents argue the cause is more likely that Pentagon cash has become an addiction that scientists rationalize by working on 'dual use' technologies -- radar that maps planets and guides missiles; robots that peer through smoke in apartment fires to rescue victims, and through battlefield smoke to find human targets."
Why would scientists have a different set of ethics than, say, workers in munitions factories?
Everything's dual use. Box cutters that helped take down the planes two years ago were "dual use".
Bottom line, if you don't want to be funded by any agency, no one is breaking your arm to do it, or requiring you to stay where you are. That's your right. It's also someone elses right to be funded that way if they choose to be.
Why didn't airplanes have impermeable doors before 9-11?
Because it wasn't cost effective. Common sense and basic security took a back seat to the bottom line.
Until we are ruled by those who don't whore themselves out for the easy money of lobbyists and corporations, until the dollar takes a back seat to common sense, until we get off of our collective lard-asses, we have only ourselves to blame.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go watch reruns of Dukes of Hazzard.
"I would rather the military run out of reasons to keep existing, and I don't want them to have any credit for something I have accomplished--which they clearly would if they gave me the money," says Steve Potter
It's amazing how people so clever in one field can exhibit appalingly naive and childish thought in other areas. I would rather scientists like Potter grow up and face the realities of the world outside their labs than have their silly views pandered to by an indulgent press.
"Surprise, surprise, it is different," he says. "Not different enough for me. Just think about the sheer magnitude of what hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on military efforts could do if spent on, for example, building schools in countries that need them, or creating diplomacy centers like the Carter Center, or informative research and practical solutions like those of the Union of Concerned Scientists."
Surprise, surprise, we do spend loads of money on countries that need schools and agricultural help and so on, but as anyone who has looked at the sad history of development aid in, say, Africa, knows, it is no use to build schools and whatnot if endemic violence destroys those schools and kills the people who would attend them. But like so many naive bien pensants, it's all 6 degrees of Dubya to him, and every evil that is is traceable back to the Pentagon.
I know this because Tyler knows this.
Well, first of all, they're being painted as "minty fresh" because the article is written by the Village Voice :-)
I, for one, don't condemn anyone for their anti-war/anti-defense principles, but in de Raadt's case, he took the position that he was scamming the government (very nice); in the VV article, the scientist seems to think that if he only thinks pure thoughts, his wonderous research will only be used for the True Good of the People. The former indicates that de Raadt is perhaps not as principled as he claims; the latter shows that the scientist is rather naive.
Firstly, technology is rarely single use, only for the military. Average citizens drive frickin' Hummvees down highway streets, for crying out loud.
Secondly, since when is it unethical for a scientist to aid the military? The world is not a nice place, and if we accept that a military is necessary, then why not have the best damn military in the world?
Thirdly, guess what, posting messages to Slashdot is using technology developed with military grants -- a hell of a lot of communication research is done with military money. Shock, horror.
Signed, a telecommunication scientist who once served in the military.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
Government funding for research is inarguably the #1 reason why the United States is the technological world leader. Unfortunately, this is way too much of a fuzzy concept for the average American to understand.
Americans see technology soming from "Sony," or "HP," or "Dell." These companies do, at best, very little science research (I'm not counting product development as research). They don't understand that the technological concepts are developed far from the private sector in government-fundded research labs and universities.
Americans are constantly barraged with the notion that all money spent by the government is "wasted." Thus, our politicians are pressured to cut everything they can. The degree to which a project is 'safe' from cutting depends only on the strength of the lobby defending it.
For politicians, cutting pure science is a no-brainer. There is no lobby to defend pure science research. There is no apparent downside to cutting the research since practical application is in the distant future (i.e. longer than one term of office). I think NASA is a perfect example. For 20 years, NASA's budget has gotten smaller. It is an easy target.
So, how do you justify science expense to the masses? Call it "military research," and fund it though semi-military organizations like DARPA. It's bulletproof, because Americans will support any military expense (if you doubt me, I refer you to Bush's $87 billion request this week).
As a scientist, I have absolutely no problem with this arrangement.
CV
The reason money is *spent* is to get something out of it. DARPA isn't just saying "Here's a big chunk of cash...please make something cool with it". They develop ideas and plans and research tracks.
Now, on top of that, DoE already spends a *SHEDLOAD* of money on pure theoretical science. I believe the particle accelerator in Batavia, IL run by FNAL costs in aggregate some $6,000.00 odd dollars a minute to operate.
Those $450 million planes, by the way, have lead to great strides forward in material science, and may one day lead to the proper materials to build a space elevator.
This, as opposed to bottom-up economics, which would have this nation buried in cigarette butts and McDonalds hamburger wrappers.
A glance at the casualty and collateral damage figures (tonnage of munitions dropped per target, civilian casualties per square mile per day, basically any metric you want) from wars fought in the 1940s, 1960s, 1990s, and 2003, leads me to conclude there's no "maybe" about it.
More efficient and effective ways of killing people has reduced the amount of killing that needs to be done.
Linux could be used by the Department of Defense. It could even be used by al Qaeda. So should we abandon Linux?
The whole concept that people should refuse to do work for the DoD just because some 60's-era peaceniks think their point of view is somehow morally superior to everyone elses and that the only reason scientists would do DoD work is because they have a selfish addiction to money is absurd. "Give peace a chance" and "greedy capitalists" all in a single concept, priceless!
NEWS FLASH: We all hate war. But war is going to happen. We should be ready when it does happen and that doesn't mean that we start preparing when we see an immediate threat. If I can help my country build a more effective defense such that an attack on our country is less probable or, if there is a need for war, that fewer of my fellow citizens (our soliders) are killed in combat, AND I can make a buck doing it, that sounds like a sweet deal to me. I'll do it in a heartbeat. And I'll do it whether Bush or Clinton is president because, in the end, I'll be helping to save the lives of soldiers regardless of who sends them into combat.
If you're going to accept this whole "addicted to defense dollars" then we might as well accept the theory that many scientists that profess global warming is real are doing so to assure a continuing stream of federal research dollars.
People, the 60's are over. Even Clinton is history. Move on and stop being rebels without a cause, it gets old.
Well, I know that when I want to read biased unsubstantiated propaganda packaged as journalism, I turn first to the Villege Voice.
Where is the reporting to back the claim that U.S. scientists that don't take Pentagon money are "extremely rare"?
What we have here is a few anecdotal reports about a few people who apparently think that all weapons are evil and have chosen to preserve their unsullied souls by opting out of the Pentagon money pump. Well, good for them. Let's hope that they occasionally recall that they're able to act in this selfish fashion because other people are willing to use weapons (and give their lives) to defend their right to make their own choices.
Since the Voice makes its money by catering to the prejudices of country-loathing snobby wanna-be leftists. I'm not surprised to see them carry this little piece of phony muckraking.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
To live in blatant ignorance of reality, or to propose ways of changing an unpleasant state of affairs that are completely at odds with reality, is the province of childhood. I am not against idealism per se, but an idealism that is ineffective in the world is useless, or even worse than useless, as it can seduce people into unwise behavior.
The future should be a place where there are no militaries. The future should be a place where human beings are civilized enough to not brandish weapons at one another. Until then, we are not much better than animals.
Well, that's exactly what we are, including you. That humans are equally as capable of, and prone to, evil as good is a well documented fact and thumbing your nose at the military will not make that go away. That you can hold these beliefs and publically proclaim them without fear of being imprisoned or murdered you owe, ironically, to the very military you despise. As Orwell said, "pacifism is possible only in countries that possess strong navies."
The adult thing to do, faced with this, at a minimum is to realize that to have a society where people can live in relative peace and with some measure of dignity, militaries are necessary, and to at least show some appreciation for this, given the alternatives. To wish anyway for an abolishment of the military because violence offends you is the mark of a petulant child, not to mention a selfish indulgence considering the ramifications for the 270 or so million other people who would be without protection.
You and he refuse to face up to the world as it is and instead you advocate policies with no hope of changing things for the better. The only criterion you have it seems is what makes you feel good, not what is realistically best. That is not idealism, that is immaturity.
I know this because Tyler knows this.