Gregory's ServerI’m genuinely just curious: can we not assume some of those scientists doing software development could also be acting harmfully or pointlessly?
|
24 comments
  @james ah okay. In that sense: I think some scientists will probably claim moral neutrality and I would disagree with that. Because while I think the scientific process can be described as morally neutral or positive depending on your world view, the question of what is being researched is a highly moral one. Besides that there's without a doubt scientists acting in bad faith too ... although I feel like science is less lucrative and less vulnerable compared to other fields. @em That is what I was trying to say here.  @james No, I agree, we absolutely can. All this weapon and war technology is developed at subsidized programmes in universities to just name one area of actively harmful. But I also think that there is some genuinely good science being done of software developed, that is actually helping humanity or the planet (weather forecasts, climate data analytics, etc). It's just by no means the majority. Or often times the very same tech can be used for good and evil and it's an ethical dilemma. @james So, no, in conclusion, we cannot and should not assume that all science or all software developed by scientists is necessarily good or absolutely valuable. To most software there's a caveat. And be it just the fact that processing and storing data costs a shitload of energy, and burns fossil fuels like crazy, which we cannot actually afford anymore.  @james @levampyre @samir also, some scientists get paid? if a corporation sponsors what was previously a volunteer project, does that automatically make it less valuable / more harmful? @levampyre @james @samir (not to say corporations are "generally good", don't get me wrong, not even slightly! but it seems pretty wild to argue that _choosing to pay_ volunteer scientists is a likely indicator of evil??) @pixx That's your personal belief, not mine. Sorry. Whenever I analyse what's wrong with this world (of the aspects that we as a society could change, of course) money is where I land. It incentivices egoism when instead we need to stand together to care for each other and empathise. It incentivices greed and exploitation of everything and everyone we perceive as less powerful or worthy than ourselves.  @james @levampyre @samir I think you might have accidentally read "most of the non-pointless software is being made by ... scientists" as "most of the scientists developing software are making non-pointless software," but I don't think that was ever said. Like if someone said most NASA engineers are neurodivergent, it wouldn't mean most neurodivergent people are NASA engineers @levampyre @raphaelmorgan @samir I don’t want to convince you, I just wanted to learn more about what you thought and why :) Like, “this is interesting, but I don’t know how they reached this conclusion, I would like to learn more about their experiences, perhaps they have worked in both of these fields and saw a trend?”. That’s it :) Anyway, I’ll wish you all a nice day @james sorry for causing you discomfort. I have a tendency to try and clear up misunderstandings because that's what I would want in the situation, but I'm reminded I can't assume others think like me even if I relate to a lot of the things they say. I'll make a note not to do that to you in the future. @raphaelmorgan I might have written that in an unusual way. I'm not native in English and tend to use German structures for nested sentences a lot. Which understandably confuses natives. But you explained correctly what I meant. @levampyre @raphaelmorgan @samir That is indeed what I read, you did not write in an unusual way. Evidently, I did, if everyone is misunderstanding me. I apologise. |
@james yeah but the argument was about non pointless software development, not science in general.
And a lot of the software development that is not pointless happens in science.