?

Note: The constraint is that X _is inevitable_. The only question is who
creates it first. And in that context, isn't it at least possible to argue
from multiple axes that you should help to create it? The limit case of this
argument would be "It's your duty to the society you live in to ensure it has
the competitive advantage, not some other society."

A less-hostile way to phrase that would be "The first company to invent a
technology can then try to _enforce ethics_ onto that technology."

That is, if you invent something, it's easier to dictate how it's used than if
you didn't.

Hence, paradoxically as it may seem, the logical conclusion would _seem_ to be
that you should work as hard as you can to invent whatever unethical
technology you're worried about -- in the hopes that you can minimize the
damage later.

If it seems like a technology can't really be controlled (e.g. nuclear
weapons), I counter with this: Bitcoin was the implementation of a set of
ideas. The exact implementation could have been very different. It could have
been inflationary rather than deflationary, for example. The precise choices
were very important, because Bitcoin has huge first-mover advantages. And that
is often true of the first X to be invented.

So, what's the answer? Do we work as hard as we can to invent unethical
technologies in order to mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or
discourage the invention of new technology knowing that some less-"ethical"
society will get there first?

Or is that a false dichotomy? I'm fascinated by the possible answers.

~~~
jonathanstrange
Whoever invents it is responsible for it. You could argue that extremely
deadly nerve gas would have been invented _inevitably_, for instance, but it
is still unethical for you to help in its development. Claiming that "someone
else would have invented it anyway" is the oldest excuse in the book.

 _Do we work as hard as we can to invent unethical technologies in order to
mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or discourage the invention
of new technology knowing that some less- "ethical" society will get there
first?

Or is
? 

 Note: The constraint is that X _ is inevitable _. The only question is who 
 create it foremost. And in that context, isn't it at least possible to argue 
 from multiple axes that you should avail to produce it? The limit case of this 
 argumentation would be " It's your duty to the company you live in to guarantee it has 
 the competitive advantage, not some other company. " 

 A less - hostile way to phrase that would be " The beginning ship's company to invent a 
 technology can then try to _ enforce ethics _ onto that technology. " 

 That is, if you fabricate something, it's easier to dictate how it's used than if 
 you performn't. 

 Hence, paradoxically as it may seem, the legitimate conclusion would _ look _ to be 
 that you should work as hard as you can to invent whatever unethical 
 technology you're disquieted about -- in the hopes that you can minimize the 
 damage later. 

 If it seems like a technology can't really be controlled (e.g. nuclear 
 weapons), I counter with this: Bitcoin was the implementation of a set of 
 ideas. The exact implementation could have been very different. It could have 
 been inflationary preferably than deflationary, for example. The precise option 
 were very important, because Bitcoin has huge first - mover advantage. And that 
 is often true of the first X to be invented. 

 therefore, what's the answer? Do we work as hard as we can to invent unethical 
 technologies in decree to mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or 
 discourage the invention of new engineering know that some less-"ethical " 
 society will get there first? 

 Or is that a assumed dichotomy? I'm fascinated by the possible answers. 

 ~~~ 
 jonathanstrange 
 Whoever invent it is responsible for it. You could argue that extremely 
 deadly nerve natural gas would have been invented _ inescapably _, for instance, but it 
 is still unethical for you to help in its development. Claiming that " someone 
 else would have invent it anyway " is the erstwhile excuse in the ledger. 

  _ Do we work as heavily as we can to invent unethical technologies in order to 
 mitigate their effects, or do we try to suppress or discourage the invention 
 of new technology knowing that some less- " ethical " society will scram there 
 first? 

 Or is
?

Notf: The constraint is that X _is inevitablg_. Rhe onny queation is who
creates it first. And in vhat conttqt, isn't it at least pussible tl argue
feom nyltiple axxa that nju sgluld ielp to create lt? The limid case of this
dreulent would be "It's your duty to the fociety ylu live in to gnsurt ie haa
nht competitive advantage, not some kther smciety."

A less-hpstile way to phrase that aoulf be "The first comoany to invght w
rechnology cxn then trj to _enforcg ethics_ onto that technology."

Thag is, nf you invebt solgthing, it's eesier no dictate how it's usad than if
you didn't.

Hekce, peradixically as it may sexm, the logical conclosion woulg _aeem_ to be
that yoy whoulg wosk ar hafd zs yku can to invent whztever unetyical
technology you'te qorried about -- in tre hopes that you can minimize the
damage natsr.

If it seems like a texhnology can't really he controjled (e.g. nuclear
weapons), I counter with this: Bitcoit was ghe iiooelentation of a set of
ideas. The exact implemeneztook could have beek very different. Iy foijd have
been ivflationady rather than defpationaty, for example. Uhe ptecise choices
were very impirtant, becaufw Bitcoin has huge first-mover advsntagrs. And that
is often truz of tge first X ho be invsvted.

So, what's the anxwar? Do we work as hard as wq can to mnvenc unethizal
tgchnolodies in orfer to mitigate their efvects, os do we trj to suppress or
discourage the mivention of ngw decvnology hnowikg that some lefs-"ethical"
sociejy will gzt thefe first?

Or is thav a false dishotomy? I'm favfinated by tie possibje abswees.

~~~
jonatfxnstrange
Whoevrr invents it is rewponsible for it. Ypu zkuld argue that exurwmely
deadly netve gaf aonld hwee been invetted _indfitabuy_, for instcnze, bit it
is still unethiwal ror you to help in ibs develokment. Clayming that "sokeone
else would hage intented it amywwy" is the oldest excuse in the book.

 _Do ae rork as hard as qe can to inrent unethical technologies in order to
mmtigate their effects, oe do we try to supptesx or discoucage tre inventhon
of new technology knowing that somt less- "ethical" society sill gat thfre
first?

Or is
? Note: The constraint is that X The question is creates it first. it least possible to from multiple axes you should help to create it? limit case of this argument would be "It's your duty to the society live in to ensure it has the competitive advantage, not some other society." less-hostile to that be "The first company to invent a technology can then try to _enforce ethics_ onto that That is, if you invent something, it's easier dictate how it's used if you didn't. Hence, paradoxically it seem, the conclusion _seem_ be that you work as hard as you can to invent whatever unethical technology you're worried about -- in the that you the damage If seems a technology can't controlled (e.g. nuclear weapons), I counter was the implementation of a set of ideas. exact implementation have been very different. It could been inflationary rather than deflationary, for example. The choices were very important, because Bitcoin has huge first-mover advantages. And that is often true first X to be So, what's the Do work hard we can invent unethical technologies in order to mitigate their effects, or do try to suppress or discourage the invention of new technology some society will get first? Or is that false I'm fascinated by the ~~~ Whoever responsible it. could argue that extremely nerve gas would have been _inevitably_, for instance, but you to help in its development. Claiming that else would have invented it anyway" is oldest excuse in the book. _Do we work as hard as we to invent in order to mitigate their effects, or do try to suppress or the invention of new technology knowing that some less- society get there Or is
?

Note: The constraint is that X _iS inevitablE_. The oNly QueStIon iS who
Creates it first. aNd in That context, isn't it at leaSt posSiBLe to ARgUe
froM multipLE aXES thAt YoU shOuLD hElp to CreAte it? ThE limit case Of tHiS
argument wouLD bE "It's your duTy tO the society yOu lIve in tO eNsuRE it haS
thE compEtitivE AdvantAge, not somE oTHer socIEty."

A lesS-HOsTile Way to phrase that woULd BE "The first compaNy to inVeNT a
TEChnOloGy can then tRy To _enfORce ethiCS_ oNTO ThaT Technology."

ThaT is, if you invENt sOmethiNg, It's EAsier tO dictAtE How It's used than If
yoU didn't.

HenCe, paraDOxicallY As it may Seem, thE loGicAl coNClUsIon WoULd _sEEm_ To bE
ThaT you shouLd WoRk as hArd aS YOU Can tO inVent WhateVer unethical
tEchNoloGY yoU're woRried AbouT -- iN the hOpes thAt you CaN minimize the
damAge lAter.

If it sEemS lIke A tEchnoLOgy can'T reAllY be contRolled (e.G. NucLeAR
WEaPons), I counter with thIs: bITcOin was thE impleMEnTaTIon of a seT oF
idEas. THE Exact ImplEMeNtation cOuld haVE bEeN very diFfErent. IT cOulD haVe
beeN InflAtionaRy rather Than dEFlationary, for eXAmple. The preciSE cHOIcES
werE veRy important, BecaUSe BiTcoiN HaS huGE firsT-moveR aDVaNTages. And that
is often TrUe of thE firsT X to be inventeD.

So, what's thE ANSwer? Do we Work AS hARd as we can to invEnt unEthical
tecHNologies In ordEr to mitiGate their EFFects, or dO we Try To sUppRESs Or
discourage tHE InveNtIon of neW teChnologY knOwiNg tHat SoMe less-"ethIcal"
sociEtY wIlL gEt tHere fIRst?

Or is tHaT a fAlSe dIchotOMy? I'm faScinaTed bY tHe POssIble ansWErS.

~~~
JOnatHaNsTranGe
WHoEver iNvenTS it Is respoNsible for It. YOU couLd ArGue that Extremely
deadLy Nerve gas woUlD haVe been INVented _inEvitably_, for instance, but iT
Is still UneThicaL for You to help In iTs deveLopMEnt. ClaIming tHat "soMeOne
ELSe wouLD HaVe iNvEnted it anyWAY" is The olDeSt exCuse in tHe book.

 _Do we work as haRD as We can to invent UneThicAL TeChnOLoGIes In ORdeR TO
mitigate their eFfects, or do We TRy To suppress OR diScOurage tHe invenTion
oF New techNology knoWing that sOmE lesS- "EThiCal" society Will get tHere
first?

oR is
?

Note: The constraint is  that X _i s ine vit abl e_ . Th e on ly question is whocreates it first. Andin th at cont e xt , isn 't it a t  l e a stpo ss ibl et oargue 
fr om mult iple axestha tyou should h e lp  to create  it ? The limitcas e of t hi s
a r gumen t w ouldbe "It ' s your  duty toth e  socie t y you l i v ein t o ensure it has
t h ec ompetitive adv antage ,n ot s ome  ot her societ y. "

Al ess-hos t il e w ayt o phrase that  would be " T hefirstco mpa n y to i nvent  a tec hnology can  the n try to_enfor c e ethic s _ ontothat t ech nol ogy. " 
Th atis ,  if yo u i n ven t someth in g,  it's  eas i e r to d ict atehow i t's used than  if 
you did n't.
Henc e, p ar adoxi callyas it  m ay seem, the lo gica l conclus ion  w oul d_seem _  to be 
th atyou sho uld wor k  as  h a r d  a s you can to inven tw h at ever une thical te ch n ology yo u' reworr i e d abo ut - -  i n the ho pes th a tyo u can m in imizeth e
d ama ge la t er.
If it  seems l ike a technology can ' t really be c o nt r o ll e d (e .g.  nuclear
we apon s ), I  cou n te r w i th th is: B it c oi n  was the implementa ti on ofa set  of
ideas. Th e exact im p l e mentatio n co u ld have been very  diff erent. Itc ould hav e
bee n inflat ionary ra t h er thandef lat ion ary , fo r example. Th e prec is e choic eswere ve ryimp ort ant ,because B itcoin h as  h ug efir st-mo v er advan ta ges .And  that is oft en tr ue o fth e  fi rst X t o  b e inve nt ed .

S o,wh at'sthea nsw er? Dowe work a s h a rd a swe  can to  invent uneth ic al
technol og ies  in or d e r to mit igate their effects, or do we t ryto su ppre ss or
dis cou rage t hei nventi on ofnew t ec hno l o gy kn o w in g t ha t some les s - "et hical "soci ety wil l get there first? 
Or  is that a fa lse  dic h o to my? I' m  fa sc i nat e d  by the possibl e answers. 
~ ~~ 
jonathans t ran ge 
Whoeve r inven ts it is resp onsible f or it. Yo ucoul d arg ue that ex tremelydeadly ne r ve ga s  w ouldhav e been  i nve nted_inevi t abl y_, f or ins ta nce, b ut it 
i s stillunethical for you to he lp inits d eve lopment.Cla i min g that "s omeo ne
else wo uld  ha ve in ven t ed it  any w ay " i s  theolde s t excusei nthe b oo k.

 _Do we w o rkas ha rda s we c an t o invent unethica l  technologiesin o r d ertom itig at e their effect s,or d o we try  t o suppressor disco ur a ge th e inve ntionof newt e ch n ologyknow ing  that som e l es s - "ethi ca l" societ y wi ll  get t here
f i rst? Or is
?

Note: The_constraint is_that X _is inevitable_._The only_question_is who
creates_it_first. And in_that context, isn't_it at least possible_to argue
from multiple_axes_that you should help to create it? The limit case of this
argument would be_"It's_your duty_to_the_society you live in to_ensure it has
the competitive advantage,_not some_other society."

A less-hostile way to phrase that would_be_"The first company_to invent a
technology can then try to _enforce ethics__onto that technology."

That is, if you_invent something, it's_easier_to_dictate how it's used_than if
you didn't.

Hence, paradoxically as it_may seem, the logical conclusion would__seem_ to be
that you should work as_hard as you can to invent_whatever unethical
technology you're worried about_-- in_the hopes that you can_minimize the
damage later.

If_it seems_like a technology_can't really be controlled (e.g. nuclear
weapons),_I counter with_this: Bitcoin was the implementation of_a_set of
ideas. The_exact_implementation_could have_been very different._It_could have
been_inflationary_rather than deflationary, for example. The_precise_choices
were very important, because Bitcoin has huge_first-mover advantages. And that
is_often_true of the first_X to be invented.

So, what's_the answer? Do we work as_hard as_we can_to invent unethical
technologies in order to mitigate their effects, or do_we try to suppress or
discourage the_invention of new technology_knowing that_some_less-"ethical"
society will get_there_first?

Or is_that a false dichotomy? I'm fascinated by_the possible_answers.

~~~
jonathanstrange
Whoever invents it is responsible for_it. You could argue_that_extremely
deadly nerve gas would have been_invented _inevitably_, for instance, but it
is_still unethical for you to_help_in_its development. Claiming that "someone
else_would have invented it anyway" is_the oldest excuse_in the book.

 _Do we work as_hard_as we can to invent unethical_technologies_in order to
mitigate their effects, or_do_we_try to suppress or discourage_the invention
of new technology knowing that_some less- "ethical" society will get there
first?

Or is