touch foxglove NOW 
Alright, no more discussion of the limits of free trade. Let's talk about technology. I saw a lively debate on here between @TheTroubleWithPibbles,
@August,
@Geralt_of_Uganda, etc, about whether it is ethical to develop technologies...
Scenario
This, of course, actually happened
J. Robert Oppenheimer was a brilliant scientist.
being so brilliant, he was able to conceive of, and help build, the greatest weapon known to mankind - the atomic bomb.
Oppenheimer, of course, didn't know the long term consequences of developing such a weapon - but he understood the sheer destructive potential of such a device.
Your question is: Was Oppenheimer acting ethically by assisting to develop the atomic bomb?
NOTE: In this hypothetical, history is at a crossroads. You don't know what will happen in the future - whether the device you created will be used to end life on earth or to usher in a new golden age.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
How is it?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More nukes --> less wars, less deaths.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I donβt care. Itβs a paradox. Death cult, when they feed into it theyβll get their hands caught into their own trap. More nukesβ> different kind of wars β> more deathsβ> more economic growth (which fights climate change) β> less human spirit β> zorg future
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Think of it in terms of risk (probability of bad event * "damage", such as lives lost). So far, nuclear armed countries haven't gone directly to war with each other, so it's panning out better than the pre-MAD world.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This isnβt the only measure of if things are going well. Itβs also no guarantee that the scenario would never will in the future.
The original vision of nukes was theyβd usher in total peace, hegemony, unity of people. That didnβt happen, so instead the cope version is just that the worst case scenario hasnβt happened (yet). Not as comforting as it could be!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
100s of million not dead over 80 years of post-WW2 battles among major powers is a much better tradeoff.
Nothing is guaranteed, so that's pointless.
Last paragraph is nonsense.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
We don't know that yet...
Nuclear annihilation is still a possibility
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
he didn't know that at the time
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Bomb kills people, simple as
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Wasn't talking to you, HeyMoon.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
you replied to my post, idiot.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
Kills people?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
It's neither commendable no deplorable. It's just a fact of the universe that a sufficiently advanced species will discover fission and that there will be power struggles with "revolutionary" weapons ie guns, explosives, etc. regardless of the technologies we develop so making a weapon from nuclear fission is just a neutral, natural outcome of being a sentient species
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Same goes for vaccines.
No wonder you got the question wrong!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes. And?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Itβll be a neutral, natural outcome too when the people who suffered most from nuclear weapons eventually take their revenge + interest (using nuclear weapons).
There are groups on planet earth who are very committed and motivated to this! A clear fact that they are at work, since the original bomb holders are becoming a bit nervous and paranoid at world events. They expand control, hoping to find the attack before it happens. Good luck, search all over!
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is developing a nuclear bomb not commendable, you silly cute twinks?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Irrelevant. The atom bomb was already being worked on and would have eventually been developed with or without his involvement.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Uh-huh, and who built it? Him and his team, so they deserve praise.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
btw I only voted that way for drama, as always Machiavellian is right
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
You don't get to my position without feigning remorse.
It had to be done, but we allow others to save face by not revelling in it nor condemning/lauding the contributions of those who enabled it.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You're the first to get thrown into the meat grinder.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
How is creating a weapon that has the potential to destroy the Earth in any way commendable?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
*potential. Vaccines have the potential to cause harm too; therefore, they're not commendable. (You) =
Have fun celebrating the post-WW2 world of bigger wars, ya immoral nigro.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context