War

QNX Newsgroups (Archives) qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy
1

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here :wink:


I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario
2

inn.qnx.com <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote:

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:



I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

It is an interesting question. To further complicate the issues, in the
past decade or so, have the armies of the major democracies spent more time
creating or trying to prevent/halt existing wars? Does this make a
difference? Is this company’s products likely to sell to the high-end
customer or not?

-David

QNX Training Services
dagibbs@qnx.com

3

Speaking not as a QNX employee but just as me, I
wouldn’t. I’m sure they’ll get what they want
else where and in the long run it probably won’t
change a thing…except for the fact that you’ll
never be in the situation where you wonder if your
creation was involved on the mass destruction that
you just heard about on the nightly news. That’s
probably worth it right there.

Besides, killing is already too easy, why make
it easier?

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel


inn.qnx.com <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote:

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:



I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario
4

inn.qnx.com <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote:

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:



I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario

I’m not convinced that warfare and violence are invalid aspects of what it
means to be human. You have to take the good with the bad and just because
we don’t like something, doesn’t make it any less a reality. Many parts of
the world are only now going through the warfare and strife that marked a
good part of north america during the last few centuries. One might almost
argue that it’s necessary for countries to pass through this sort of thing
before they become stable and peaceful.

The weapons will be made regardless of whether you do it or not so your
only dilemma is if your conscience can bear being an active part of it.
Do you believe gun manufacturers are responsible for all the shooting deaths
in the US or legislators who don’t keep the guns out of peoples hands? If
you believe the second, then I would expect your conscience would be clear
because, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people”. On the other hand,
if you believe that providing really effective, efficient ways to kill people
makes it more likely to happen, then you should not make yourself a part of
that process. I’m not sure what I would do in your shoes but I might also
take into consideration the past record of what has been done with weapons of
that company/country. If they were used for peacekeeping, etc. then it might
not be so bad… This has been an awful dilemma for scientists ever since
Oppenheimer and I certainly don’t envy your decision.

good luck,

–
Kris Warkentin
kewarken@qnx.com
(613)591-0836 x9368
One of the main causes of the fall of the Roman Empire was that, lacking zero,
they had no way to indicate sucessful termination of their C programs.

  • Robert Firth
5

“inn.qnx.com” wrote:

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:

I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario

Hi Mario -
Your post raises at least a couple of issues worthy of discussion; we won’t
find any quick answers in K&R or Knuth.

The second point you mention is, perhaps, easiest; you can afford to make a
choice. A starving man still has to feed his family, and only Javert (Les
Miserables - V Hugo) would convict a man who steals bread for his family. It
seems to me that morality consists of putting the long term needs of our
community ahead our own short term gains, either economic or emotional. (I think
that taking care of children is one of those long term needs.) It seems that
the tension between “what I want now” and “what will be better for us (the
community) later” is an essential component of any moral problem; if there is no
tension, where’s the problem? So whether or not you can afford the costs or
consequences of each side of your decision determines whether you really do have
a choice.
Others may think that morality consists of doing whatever they want to as
long as nobody is directly (or immediately) injured in any way, maybe limiting
their consideration to physically or financially. This is defensible on the
grounds that it is at least clear. The legalists like that argument, and out
legal systems are built around it. I just think it is rather narrow, limited in
scope, and short-sighted. It seems too much like good men doing nothing, which,
as some dead wise man said, is all that is necessary for the victory of evil.
The first question raised is whether or nor selling to companies who profit
by warfare should be considered immoral. Sweden and Switzerland are able to
maintain their neutrality mostly because they both maintain well equipped
standing armies of conscript soldiers. Clearly, the companies who equip those
armies are profiting from at least the possibility of warfare. On the other
extreme are those companies (and countries) who jump to sell “small arms” (not
too sure of the current definition…) to other countries’ armies (and/or
insurgents - maybe at the same time) because if they didn’t someone else would.
They seem to be willing to profit from immanently expected death and
destruction. I think the question revolves around whether the warfare is
defensive or acquisitive (can’t use “offensive” here, as it has a double
meaning, and one of them is associated with the question under discussion - “is
all warfare offensive?”
Thankfully, you did not mention the name of your potential customer, so we
can continue to “speak Hypothetical”, as the Ferengi businessman said. For
myself, the decision would revolve around how much of the company’s activities
were engaged in “acquisitive warfare”, and how directly my product or effort
would aid the profitability of the company with respect to that acquisitive
warfare. I, personally, would not be willing to have my efforts support
“acquisitive warfare” - but I guess you knew that, by now. :slight_smile:

So much for just spending a bit of time skimming through the newsgroups!
Hope I didn’t overwhelm anyone. And I never even spoke about the size of a
community, you’ll just have to read “Speaker for the Dead” (Orson Scott Card)
yourself!

Phil Olynyk

6

Several people have commented that your decision won’t make a big difference
in the big picture. But think again. Wasn’t it about 5 or 6 years ago that
a US battleship or aircraft carrier was stranded in the ocean because 3 NT
systems all suffered from the blue screen of death? Sure, QNX can make a
difference!

When you think about it, any software can be used to kill someone. I’ll bet
that somewhere on Earth someone has thrown a GameBoy at someone and killed
them. ;~}

I’m inclined to say “If you’re selling to ‘our side’, go ahead an make the
sale.” But then I realize that about half of te people reading this aren’t
necessarily on ‘my side’.

I like the idea of the virtual war. What interests me about this is that
you could pit contemporary world leaders against historical leaders. Maybe
if we pit Hitler against Saddam they will both win/loose and we can be rid
of both of them. ;~} ?

Perhaps the best thing to consider is, as someone else pointed out, “Is this
product more likely to be used to ‘keep peace’ or ‘destroy’?” Of cource I
would not trust the answer to that question from anyone who’s business it is
to engage in war.

Personally I wouldn’t think any less of someone who chooses to make a sale.
Business is business. If you knew that the software would ONLY be used in
an abusive manner, that would be a different story.

Bill Caroselli

“David Rempel” <drempel@qnx.com> wrote in message
news:9n83rs$m6q$1@nntp.qnx.com…

Speaking not as a QNX employee but just as me, I
wouldn’t. I’m sure they’ll get what they want
else where and in the long run it probably won’t
change a thing…except for the fact that you’ll
never be in the situation where you wonder if your
creation was involved on the mass destruction that
you just heard about on the nightly news. That’s
probably worth it right there.

Besides, killing is already too easy, why make
it easier?

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel


inn.qnx.com <> mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> > wrote:

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:


I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and
designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted
the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone
getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able
to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking
for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario
7

Phil Olynyk wrote:

[snip]
… Sweden and Switzerland are able to
maintain their neutrality mostly because they both maintain well equipped
standing armies of conscript soldiers.

<laughing so hard, almost can’t breath>

Switzerland is able to keep neutrality mostly because all potentially
interested sides have accounts in her famous banks. Don’t want to offend
that country, but get real. Her ‘well equipped army’ would not stand a
chance against a determined enemy (of bigger size).

Sweeden is able to keep her neutrality simply because nobody wants her.
All her current neighbors used to be under her (or russian) control, so
they are pretty happy to have independence by now. Hitler did not bother
because (1) there is not much to bother for, (2) he captured Norway and
(3) he already had Finland on his side, so Sweeden became isolated piece
of land without land borders with any enemies and without access to any
sea ports Hitler could not control. It was rather convinient to leave it
alone just in case he’d need to handle some diplomatic affairs.

  • Igor
8

Previously, inn.qnx.com wrote in qdn.public.qnxrtp.advocacy:

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

Well as in most complex issues, asking the question is the
first step. There’s already been enough response of the
obvious, such as, if you don’t sell the product, someone
else probably will. I liked the responses that request
balance. Maybe this company is selling a product that will
be used mostly as a deterrent? Maybe it makes small land
mines that kill innocent children on a regular basis. Your
efforts are also an issue. It sounds like you will be
selling an off the shelf product with a specific use,
unrelated to warfare directly. That’s quite different from
hiring on as a programmer to build an embedded weapon
system.

I think it pertinent that in the last 50 years scientists
have been put under the microscope for their work. Would we
have been better off had there been no Manhattan project?
While unsuccessful, I believe that Hitler had a nuclear
program. Does that fact justify our building the A bomb?

Within the last two days I’ve heard or read about the US
trying to build a better Anthrax germ. Supposedly this is
so that we can create a defence against it before our
enemies create it themselves. Is this not transparently
self serving. What can stop the cycle other than personal
decisions?

As information technicians, shouldn’t we feel the same way
about our creations? While it is not possible to absolutely
prevent our work from being used for evil, don’t we have a
responsibility to consider the consequences?


Mitchell Schoenbrun --------- maschoen@pobox.com

9

Switzerland is able to keep neutrality mostly because all potentially
interested sides have accounts in her famous banks. Don’t want to
offend
that country, but get real. Her ‘well equipped army’ would not stand a
chance against a determined enemy (of bigger size).

While it is true that Switzerland could not withstand any reasonably
determined effort at acquisition, I disagree that there is any
substantial disincentive toward acquisition due to the presence of bank
accounts. The reason that Switzerland has not been invaded recently, is
simply that the deterrent they do have, has (to this point) proven
sufficient to outweigh whatever benefit would accrue due to acquisition.
Nothing remains constant however; and if Switzerland suddenly had some
strategic attribute that some determined dictator wanted, and was
willing to pay (the military) price for, Switzerland would be acquired
(and I doubt the hypothetical dictator would give more than a passing
thought to any Swiss bank accounts he/she had as they planned the
invasion :wink:.

This discussion assumes that the U.N. would sit idly by while
Switzerland was invaded. There is at least a remote possibility now
(post WWII), that this would not happen (since WWII the U.N. has
conducted 2 major interventions on behalf of member nations that were
invaded - one didn’t even involve oil :wink:. Since there is at least a
possibility that the U.N. would not let this happen, one has to believe
that things have improved slightly since WWII.

10

David Rempel <drempel@qnx.com> wrote:

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel

This reminded of a Star Trek episode (from the original series!)
called “A Taste of Armageddon.”

…two neighboring planets had been at war for over 500 years,
and to avoid the complete devastation of war, computers were used.
When a “hit” was scored by one of the planets, the people declared “dead”
willingly walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.

Basically the message was that you must truly experience the horrors
of war to want to make peace.

-Donna

11

I’m not convinced that warfare and violence are invalid aspects of
what it
means to be human.

Isn’t it ironic that the only way to be “convinced” that warfare and
violence are indeed “invalid aspects of what it means to be human” is to
experience them first-hand ? This is almost as ironic as the fact that
we have to prepare for war to insure peace.

Perhaps this dichotomy exists because there are those that are “not
human” amongst us ? By “not human” I mean psychologically not “human”
(i.e. psychopathic individuals such as Hitler, Saddam, Milosevic).

The point I am trying to make is that I prefer isolating the rare
homo-sapiens who are willing to use warfare/violence to get what they
want, and place them outside the set of those considered human, than to
disparage humanity in general with the idea that it “is just our nature”
to kill and mame (I believe it requires carefully crafted manipulation
of group psychology to incite a group of average human beings into
extreme acts of violence, and this hardly qualifies as a “natural
inclination toward violence”).

Of course none of this has much to do with the original question…

12

Donna Kinsman wrote:

David Rempel <> drempel@qnx.com> > wrote:

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel

This reminded of a Star Trek episode (from the original series!)
called “A Taste of Armageddon.”

…two neighboring planets had been at war for over 500 years,
and to avoid the complete devastation of war, computers were used.
When a “hit” was scored by one of the planets, the people declared “dead”
willingly walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.

Basically the message was that you must truly experience the horrors
of war to want to make peace.

-Donna

Thus the saying:

“Peace hasn’t come to {Northern Ireland|Middle East|Macedonia|…} because
they haven’t yet killed enough on both sides.”

13

I think it pertinent that in the last 50 years scientists
have been put under the microscope for their work. Would we
have been better off had there been no Manhattan project?

Would we have been better off without World War II? That’s a tougher
question to ask.

The Americans really had no choice in persuing the Manhattan project.

While unsuccessful, I believe that Hitler had a nuclear
program.

Yes, Germany did. The whole reason the States began the Manhattan Project
was to build the atomic bomb before the Germans… and it was a letter
written by Einstein that did the convincing…

Does that fact justify our building the A bomb?

Yes, without a doubt. For arguments sake… let’s say Germany had the
atomic bomb by 1940. What would have happened? How do you fight a weapon
that is 2,000 times stronger than the strongest bomb used by the Brits?
That’s like fighting a war with a soggy noodle. “Oh, z’we are looozing za
battle of britian! Drop za big bomb!”

If you find out your enemy is building a super-uber weapon, you have to do
something to counter it… even if it means building the same weapon
yourself.

As information technicians, shouldn’t we feel the same way
about our creations?

Chances are you wouldn’t be told EXACTLY what you are working on… just
that whatever you ARE doing has to perform a certain task and conform to a
set of rules.

While it is not possible to absolutely
prevent our work from being used for evil, don’t we have a
responsibility to consider the consequences?

It really depends on what your definition of evil is.

Look at it another way. Say you refuse to, I dunno, upgrade the radar on
the Patriot missle due to overwhelming moral objections. However, you are
the ONLY person who can do this. Next thing you know, you are costing
more lives by NOT upgrading it in the first place… (hard to follow, I
know!)

14

“Rennie Allen” <RAllen@csical.com> wrote in message
news:64F00D816A85D51198390050046F80C9B035@exchangecal.hq.csical.com…

I’m not convinced that warfare and violence are invalid aspects of
what it
means to be human.

Isn’t it ironic that the only way to be “convinced” that warfare and
violence are indeed “invalid aspects of what it means to be human” is to
experience them first-hand ? This is almost as ironic as the fact that
we have to prepare for war to insure peace.

Perhaps this dichotomy exists because there are those that are “not
human” amongst us ? By “not human” I mean psychologically not “human”
(i.e. psychopathic individuals such as
Hitler

…and most of Germany, Austria etc. people thas days…

Saddam

…and most of Irque people thes days…

Milosevic).

…and most of Bosnian, American etc. people today…

  • Boris Eltsin,

…and most of Russian and Chechnya people today…

  • many more of another nice kind folks that kill each other due to
    “independent reasons of national scale” blindly folowing them. or even
    worse not blindly but just having no another choise.

The point I am trying to make is that I prefer isolating the rare
homo-sapiens who are willing to use warfare/violence to get what they
want, and place them outside the set of those considered human, than to
disparage humanity in general with the idea that it “is just our nature”
to kill and mame (I believe it requires carefully crafted manipulation
of group psychology to incite a group of average human beings into
extreme acts of violence, and this hardly qualifies as a “natural
inclination toward violence”).

let’s go futher and insulate different contries, nations, religions and in
general inequaly thinking people from each other ? but unfortunatelly even
this wouldn’t help and some time later they’ll start a civil war or another
alike “party”. also there’s too much of prisons needed. btw if anyone
remember such “fun” experiment has already been made in exUSSR. there were
more prisons then shops and every square meter of snow in Siberia had it’s
own personal janitor. but it didn’t help too much more like vice versa.
guess, will be the next iteration a way better ?

Of course none of this has much to do with the original question…

similarly

// wbr

15

Dean Douthat <ddouthat@faac.com> wrote:


Donna Kinsman wrote:

David Rempel <> drempel@qnx.com> > wrote:

As an aside, wouldn’t it be great if wars were
fought in the virtual world instead of the real world?
(tonight: Unreal Tournament Deathmatch …
Saddam vs Bush, for the fate of Kuwaite ;P)…now
I’m dreaming…

– drempel

This reminded of a Star Trek episode (from the original series!)
called “A Taste of Armageddon.”

…two neighboring planets had been at war for over 500 years,
and to avoid the complete devastation of war, computers were used.
When a “hit” was scored by one of the planets, the people declared “dead”
willingly walk into antimatter chambers and are vaporized.

Basically the message was that you must truly experience the horrors
of war to want to make peace.

-Donna

Thus the saying:

“Peace hasn’t come to {Northern Ireland|Middle East|Macedonia|…} because
they haven’t yet killed enough on both sides.”

Don’t you think that the peace hasn’t come because there is still a lot
guys who profit from war ? Think ! Imagine that you are weapon producer:
it is good for you that the US army intervents in Macedonia, but
it is not good for you if it succeeds to establish peace there !
Therefore each conflict turns to never-ending story ! The guys who
makes fortune from weapons dream about imperialism and tell you
stories about democracy.

I appreciate everybody who says ‘no’ to such contract.

Andy

16

“inn.qnx.com” <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote in message
news:9n7vmk$nt3$1@inn.qnx.com…

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:


I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted
the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone
getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able
to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes?

Sic ! You asked about imho but not an advice.

PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

If i were in your shoes and had a luxury to make a free choice then the
answer is definitive No. Otherwise have to submit with myself that another
regulat intelligent missile designed for smashing else one little group of
[good/bad/neutral/innocent/other] people in several hundreds of persons
during the explosion will be spreadding sticking in brains splinters with
burned out copuright message a’la “Produced by BigGovMilDefResLabs. All
right reserved. For futher Sales, Marketing and Custom Development
information please feel free to contact
ianzag@src-little-peaceful-country.mil”. Dunno as others but i don’t need
this kind of popularity and feel really sick from understanding that i’m
directly been involved into the process which is deeply antagonistic to my
life principles. And i don’t believe in division of weapon for defence for
attach for local conflicts peaceful regulations etc. You don’t know for sure
which way your today’s works will be used tomorrow and no one will tell you
the full truth.

Actually i’m answering your question just course i’v been once in similar
situation and guess it wasn’t the last offer. And every time there is/will
be a fight between principles and current daily dictated conditions. And
until i have a freedom to choose i believe that principles are much more
reasonable. Another question is how to keep this freedom of choice.

  • Mario

// wbr

17

“inn.qnx.com” a écrit :

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:

I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario

Your question are perfectly laudable Mario. Maybe I would choose to not answer
to your customer.
The problem is that we won’t prevent somebody to attack somebody else. I think
it’s a shame.
So, in this context, making weapons is necessary. All falks have the right to
protect themself.
So, the main bind is not to know if YOU have to help somebody to make weapons
but for the MANUFACTURERS to know to WHO it selles these weapons.
Peoples were killed before weapons exist. Of course, a tomawak kill less peoples
than a bomb. But is there anybody to say that he can prevent making weapons all
other the world!
If sane peoples don’t do it, weapons could be more terrific (hum, I’m not so
sure of that,but…)

You can think that these are to protect someone.
What about a cigaret manufacturer? Does he save some lifes?
How many persons are killed by cars?
…

Regards,
Alain.

18

Igor Kovalenko a écrit :

Phil Olynyk wrote:

[snip]
… Sweden and Switzerland are able to
maintain their neutrality mostly because they both maintain well equipped
standing armies of conscript soldiers.

laughing so hard, almost can’t breath

Switzerland is able to keep neutrality mostly because all potentially
interested sides have accounts in her famous banks. Don’t want to offend
that country, but get real. Her ‘well equipped army’ would not stand a
chance against a determined enemy (of bigger size).

Sweeden is able to keep her neutrality simply because nobody wants her.
All her current neighbors used to be under her (or russian) control, so
they are pretty happy to have independence by now. Hitler did not bother
because (1) there is not much to bother for, (2) he captured Norway and
(3) he already had Finland on his side, so Sweeden became isolated piece
of land without land borders with any enemies and without access to any
sea ports Hitler could not control. It was rather convinient to leave it
alone just in case he’d need to handle some diplomatic affairs.

  • Igor

Of course Igor, but the dissuasion principle is not to be able to destroy the
ennemy but to be able to make as many damage to him that it can do to us in
order that he consider he has nothing to win to attack us.

Alain.

19

inn.qnx.com <mcharest@clipzinformatic.com> wrote:

[These are MY opinions and I’m speaking only for myself]

I think the question is “where do you draw the line”. In this case you
have a pretty clear view of what your software could be used for. But
would you have the same moral doubts if your software was indirectly
involved in the manufacturing of warfare equipment? What about if it was
indirectly indirectly involved? And what about triple indirectly, and so
on…

So how many levels of indirections should be between the deployment of
your software and people getting killed? Perhaps the answer would be: as
long as there are so many levels that you cannot see the relevance
anymore? But then if you were desperate enough to sell, you would
deliberately refuse to see beyond a certain number of levels just to be
able to sell your product with a clear conscience.

Even the most complete passivist will eventually somehow undeliberately
contribute to warfare in anything he/she buys or sells. It’s just a matter
of how clear you’re able to see the relevance between your actions and
people eventually getting killed. I utterly detest warfare, but
unfortunately anything I make/buy/sell is somehow (no matter how remote)
linked to it.

So to answer your question: Since in the long run we are all responsible
for warfare, whatever decision you make, I won’t condemn you UNLESS your
motive is to support warfare.

regards,
rick

This is not related to QNX but since I almost live here > :wink:



I’ve received an order from a company that is manufacturing and designing
warfare equipment. I’ve been wondering; should I sell to them? Granted the
software they want will make absolutly no difference between someone getting
killed or not, but it will possibly make their job easier at doing so.
Luckly I can afford to not sell them, so I have the luxury of being able to
make a choice.

What would you do if you’d be in my shoes? PS I’m not really looking for
someone to take the decision for me, I want to see what people think.

  • Mario
20

Wow! This has evolved into quite a contravercial and hot little discussion
with everyone stating their mind.

I propose another important discussion subject:
“Miniskirts - How short is short enough?” ;~}

Personally, I’ll sleep much better once we’ve all come to an agreement about
this.