Drone do ents case: federal appeals court rules against CIA

[rjv]

That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.

actually that is exactly my point. there are several humanists (including humanist of the year, steven pinker) who argue that the removal of men from the process of war would, along with our increasingly technological weaponry, create a less violent world. this serves the purpose of humanism quite well because it uses reason as its primary impetus and it would ulitimately aim to preserve the dignity of humans. man does not have to literally be at the controls. of course, it is a point of debate amongst humanists.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

actually that is exactly my point. there are several humanists (including humanist of the year, steven pinker) who argue that the removal of men from the process of war would, along with our increasingly technological weaponry, create a less violent world. this serves the purpose of humanism quite well because it uses reason as its primary impetus and it would ulitimately aim to preserve the dignity of humans. man does not have to literally be at the controls. of course, it is a point of debate amongst humanists.

I did not know that. Interesting to say the least. I don't buy the notion of objective 'dignity' one whit though. Seems like another pie in the sky form. I do get the notion that human behavior being what it is tends to escalate when at the controls.

What do you mean in terms of 'at the controls' though? I can get that at the point of attack it would be wise to exclude emotional beings. At the same time at the higher levels of control ie overall command are you really saying that humanists would support being subordinate to machines?

[rjv]

I did not know that. Interesting to say the least. I don't buy the notion of objective 'dignity' one whit though. Seems like another pie in the sky form. I do get the notion that human behavior being what it is tends to escalate when at the controls.

What do you mean in terms of 'at the controls' though? I can get that at the point of attack it would be wise to exclude emotional beings. At the same time at the higher levels of control ie overall command are you really saying that humanists would support being subordinate to machines?

personally, i don't agree very much with pinker nor the argument he presents in his book, the better angels of our nature. he essentially argues that we are living in more peaceful times as a result of our advances in warfare technology. his actual response to the question of drones was: "I will challenge the assumption that drone warfare leads to greater loss of civilian life. This is exactly backwards. Drones are targeted against enemy individuals, and thus kill a small fraction of the civilians that used to be killed by the indiscriminate carnage of artillery, aerial bombardment, and search-and-destroy raids. The difference is that today we care more about civilian lives, so an errant drone attracts more condemnation than the “collateral damage” of previous wars. This concern is obviously a welcome development, but it distorts appreciation of the historical trend away from high-casualty wars."

whether or not some humanists or pinker would defer completely to automation i would not know. but since he seems to believe we are becoming a more moral society and use technology to serve this greater morality perhaps he would.

[Winehole23]

That is besides the point as drones are operated by men. You issue is the removal of man as the controller which is at the crux of humanism.

the removal of man, the target, weighs here.

the target of humanism perhaps resembles humanity as well. whether or not the target resides at the very crux, would clearly be for an expert such as you to declare . . .

[Winehole23]

"anti-drone":

I am wearing a silver hoodie that stops just below the nipples. Or, if you prefer, a baggy crop-top with a hood. The piece – this is fashion, so it has to be a "piece" – is one of a kind, a prototype. It has wide square shoulders and an overzealous zip that does up right to the tip of my nose.

It does not, it's fair to say, make its wearer look especially cool. But that's not really what this hoodie is about. It has been designed to hide me from the thermal imaging systems of unmanned aerial surveillance vehicles – drones. And, as far as I can tell, it's working well.


"It's what I call anti-drone," explains designer Adam Harvey. "That's the sentiment. The material in the anti-drone clothing is made of silver, which is reflective to heat and makes the wearer invisible to thermal imaging."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesi...ie-big-brother

[FuzzyLumpkins]

the removal of man, the target, weighs here.

the target of humanism perhaps resembles humanity as well. whether or not the target resides at the very crux, would clearly be for an expert such as you to declare . . .

I used the standard definition of humanist as opposed to say nihilist or deist. It is so amusing that my pedantry gets umbrage from you of all people.

For someone that fancies himself as a sophisticate you do a poor job of it. rjv directed the conversation well. It seems obvious to me that he termed his post as he did trying to evoke the response that he got. He used that to segue into the conversation about pinker. I thought it was very well done on his part.

Try being more of a conversationalist if you are going to front as you do.

[Winehole23]

no umbrage taken, I wasn't seeking your approval. your post is barely responsive and pedantry is a good word for it.