Ought there be an embargo on new technology?

Question

Ought there be an embargo on new technology? Are we taking invention too far, too quickly, for our own good?

It is a well known fact that technological discovery advances by leaps and bounds during times of war and conflict. But that new technology is anti-human i.e. it is for military application and therefore aimed at killing more and more people. (Sure, there are spin-offs which can be generally beneficial to the world at large but it is incidental.)

In days of yore protagonists used to engage in personal hand-to-hand contest. But nowadays militants sit in comfortable plush offices in Virginia using computers to kill thousands of people they don't even know by remote control.

Answer 1

Quite the contrary, in fact a very small percentage of programs which have recently been tagged for development due to military concerns have been exclusively "anticombatant" in nature. While there are obvious and famous examples such as nuclear technology (where does your electricity come from? 20% nuclear if you live in the U.S.)1 or less known and more practical examples such as duct tape (2) or the GPS system which we use to find our way about town nowadays (3), there have been countless, non lethal military wartime inventions which have changed the way we live our lives today.

The difference is all in the perpective which we approach the question. If one is to focus solely on the business of building a bigger bullet, than nothing the military invents truly appears to be practical in a humanitarian sense. However, when we take our eyes from the front lines and look into all of the effort and research that goes into the outfitting, mobility and protection of people who will ultimately be in the path of those bigger bullets, we can see an industry which has contributed more to the health and welfare of peoples around the world than any other industry in human history.

non sourced inventions of the military ('cause I'm too lazy to cite them all):

The steam engine (i.e., first train system)

modern advances in prosthetic limb technology

countless medical advances (including the medivac helicopter system)

trench coats

and finally, the one most critical to our conversation right now:

the internet

Answer 2

big deal...go to war with a pointed stick then.  You make wrong assumptions here cause you got some anit-war thing goin on.

Answer 3

Well you're right, now lets all get off our computers, start a fire, get a damp blanket and all communicate by smoke signal.You may want to rethink you're position on this one.

Answer 4

No, not all new technology is used to kill. People want to kill each other; they'll find away with or without technology; past history has shown us that; some even traveled bare foot in the snow to do so; others have traveled over hot blistering sand.  When people get that hankering to kill and destroy...not even a heard of wild elephants is going to stop them.

Answer 5

No, many of the most important technical advances come from the military (like the internet). The problem is not technology, the problem is human (animal?) nature. People will always want to kill each other, despite how it's accomplished.

Answer 6

Have you really thought about all the applications of "new technology" and how pervasive it is in our lives?

Like you I deplore the application of new technology to the Killing Machine, but I know a lot more people personally who are alive today thanks to "new technology" than I know that have been killed by it.  That includes things like air bags, cell phones, medicines, GPS, etc., etc., all of which were used by these people to save their or others lives.

Also, I know a lot more people whose quality of life has been improved by "new technology," including things like hip and knee replacements, heart valves, artificial limbs and so forth.

And then of course there're all those whose lives are much more productive -- with less environmental impact -- due to "new technology," and those examples are as self-evident as the computer screen in front of you.

Finally, I should add that I have my left leg today, instead of having it amputated near the hip, due to "new technology," so I'm not about to discredit it too much!

Answer 7

Absolutely Not !!!!

If you think there should be one, then get off this computer at once !!!

Do you like TV? Telephones? Microwave ovens? Anasthetic? Blood transfusions? X-rays?

They were all new technology once. Now they are all part of our lives.

You can't stop progress.

Answer 8

maybe

Answer 9

There are embargos on new technologies - governments sit on loads of stuff that they don't release because they don't want any enemies (or potential enemies) to see the tech.

Your so-called 'militants' represent millions of people, so fighting hand-to-hand (Putin v Bush, e.g.) wouldn't really accomplish much (though it would be funny). And since when has violence ever solved anything, on a personal or national level?

I think the real problem is not about technology, but rather the way it's used. And you can abuse anything, so stopping development just means that we'll be restricted to the (not inconsequential) weapons we have now.

I would like to see Brown v Mugabe, though