Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ubc-vision.CDN
Path: utzoo!utcsri!ubc-vision!banner
From: banner@ubc-vision.CDN (Allen Banner)
Newsgroups: can.general
Subject: dirty money
Message-ID: <909@ubc-vision.CDN>
Date: Fri, 5-Apr-85 00:37:57 EST
Article-I.D.: ubc-visi.909
Posted: Fri Apr  5 00:37:57 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 5-Apr-85 01:42:00 EST
Organization: UBC Computational Vision Lab, Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Lines: 70


> However, we would like to know, of all those people who have posted
> anti-SDI articles, how many of them would accept money from the military at
> all, never mind the SDI money.

Speaking for myself, I *have* accepted money from the military when I worked
for a consulting company.  However, I will point out the the contracts did
not involve weapons development or even anything remotely connected to
weapons.  The point is:  I personally see nothing wrong with military money
*if* it is spent in such a way which improves our security...and our
security is *not* improved by encouraging paranoia amongst Soviets (which
seems to be the Reagan administration point of view).

> These people should argue against military money in itself, and should
> not limit the argument to pros and cons of SDI.

As far as I'm concerned the (immediate) issue is (to quote Martin Taylor 
from a previous submission) Canadian participation in "aggressive 
militarization".  SDI is the current "battleground" for that issue.

However, to simply discard SDI doesn't solve the problem of the arms race
(at a more general level) and how do we achieve and maintain peace (at a
more general level still).  I repeat that I would be very interested to 
hear other people's views on "defense-protected build-down" (Barkenbus 
and Weinberg, October, 1984; Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists).

Referring to Martin Taylor again:

> But I really think the biggest amount of money to be spent on defence
> research should be in peace psychology (ie conflict resolution and
> related sociological subjects).

100% agreed!  The Harvard Nuclear Study Group points out that the Arms
Control and Disarmament Agency (funded through the Department of Defense)
has an annual budget of less than the cost of *one* F-16!  Generally, the
only things which do get funded seem to be those which keep the arms race
going.  Of course, its not in the interest of the "military/industrial
complex" to have it otherwise.

And responding to Martin Taylor re: unfriendly aliens and avoiding self
annihilation (from a discussion on can/ai)

Any threat which mutually threatens both parties should do the trick.  A
classic example which was pointed out in the film "The Edge of History" is
the eradication of smallpox...that required cooperation of the Soviets as
well as Western nations.  

As for the threat of self-annihilation, that's something I've wondered about
alot.  One person I talked to suggested that our evolution has supplied a
good ability to respond to threats perceived directly by our
senses...sticking a hand on the stove, somebody holding a gun to your head.
We are not so well equipped, however, to deal with threats which are more
abstract...the dangers of smoking, the need for seat belts, and the threat
of nuclear war.  I think the large impact of TV shows such as "The Day
After" and "Threads" is caused by this very fact...they bring the threat 
directly to our senses.

Another possible reason why the threat of annihilation doesn't seem so
vividly apparent to people is that it gets clouded by other "threats" which
are easier for us to grasp...such as the threat of an enemy.  The "threat 
of the Soviets" is indeed great...I'm not implying that its not.  However,
it is easier for us to grasp than the relatively new and unfamiliar threat
of self-annihilation and therefore, for many people, it receives higher
priority.

...I hope we don't actually have to experience it to finally give it the
credit it is due!


					Al Banner