tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post7431441074257702715..comments2023-11-22T01:14:54.298-08:00Comments on amor mundi: Natality, Tech "Disruption," and Killer RobotsDale Carricohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-15049169523222599852015-02-13T10:43:12.118-08:002015-02-13T10:43:12.118-08:00Thank you for the taking the time to interact with...Thank you for the taking the time to interact with my post. Knowing your familiarity with and appreciation of Arendt, I'm especially glad for it. <br /><br />I certainly take your point about the Arendt's taking at face value claims about the eradication of labor and the rest in the Prologue. I do wonder if this was not so much a matter of naive credulity as it was a reasonable expectation in light of the advent of atomic weapons and man-made satellites. We're accustomed to both, but at the time I imagine they must have seemed harbingers of ever more remarkable techno-scientific achievements. In any case, it's not a something I'd considered before and I think you're right to point it out. <br /><br />And I certainly appreciate the larger point about not buying into the rhetoric from either a celebratory or critical perspective. <br /><br />I do think Jay makes an important point above. While there is continuity in the trajectory of weapon-making, and, yes, fundamentally, weapons are made to kill, I don't think it's unimportant to acknowledge that there is a certain novelty in these weapons systems and that this novelty may further facilitate the abdication of moral responsibility. <br /><br />Also, I would be interested in hearing you elaborate a bit on this comment: "I think it is probably wrong to assimilate those critiques to the proposal of 'thinking without bannisters' she elaborated for thought at the end of philosophy." <br /><br />Thanks again for the generous interaction! For some reason your comment did not show up on my blog post, so I'll include a link to this page in the post. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-68719310094989450862015-02-12T21:43:19.498-08:002015-02-12T21:43:19.498-08:00Weapons are made to kill and nothing else. Somebod...Weapons are made to kill and nothing else. Somebody knows something. But I see your point.Dale Carricohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02811055279887722298noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5956838.post-67845353375194675142015-02-12T20:06:02.685-08:002015-02-12T20:06:02.685-08:00The difference, for accountability purposes, is wh...The difference, for accountability purposes, is whether the user of the weapon could reasonably be expected to know what it will do. <br /><br />Supposedly, any one of us could have prevented Hurricane Katrina by simply holding our breath for half a second at any time in the summer of 2005 (as per ye venerable butterfly effect). Yet we can't reasonably be held accountable for the hurricane, because we had no way of knowing the results of our actions.<br /><br />Of course, turning on a weapon without knowing what it will do could reasonably be considered reckless, even if you have a good idea of what it has been designed to do under ideal, simplified conditions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com