io9 
Enter your username and password.
San Francisco, 11:57 PM
Sat Nov 7
11 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors: tips@io9.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Annalee Newitz | Email
News Editor:
Charlie Jane Anders | Email
Associate Editor:
Meredith Woerner | Email
Assistant Editor:
Lauren Davis | Email
Weekend Editor:
Graeme McMillan | Email
Contributors:
Joshua Glenn
Stephen Goldmeier | Email
Ed Grabianowski | Email
Austin Grossman
Paul Hogan | Email
Lauren Davis | Email
Chris Hsiang | Email
Lynn Peril | Email
Ann VanderMeer
Alasdair Wilkins | Email
Graphic Designer:
Stephanie Fox | Email
Interns:
Tim Barribeau | Email
Julia Carusillo | Email
Alex Eichler | Email
Cyriaque Lamar | Email
Caitlin Petrakovitz | Email
Mary Ratliff | Email
Josh Snyder | Email
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/05/09
I've been studying the concepts of Buddhism recently (which is actually more of a philosophy rather than a religion,) and I've got to say, there's definite merit in his ideas, but, interestingly enough, there's no way we'd ever convince a group of soldiers that embraced those ideas fully to ever participate in any sort of warfare again. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
If it's defined as worship of the supernatural, then Buddhism tends to be generally less religious than what we're familiar with from mainstream Christianity.
If you define religion as "re + ligare," "to reconnect," with reality as it is, then certain forms of Buddhism are very religious.
It all depends on which form of Buddhism you're talking about, though. There's a big difference between Theravada and Pure Land, for example.
The core concepts are the same, but the interpretations are wildly different.
Out of curiosity, what sort of Buddhism have you been studying? #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
I agree that it's a religion, but you can take away the religious aspects of it to reflect on the philosophy behind the message. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
I started with Theravada as well, when I got into insight meditation.
The thing I love about it is that it's like a diagnosis. The Four Noble Truths identify the problem of suffering; and the Eightfold path is the prescription / remedy.
Whatever your interest in it, I wish you the best of luck, with metta! #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
haha yeah: D #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
11/06/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
You heathen. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
Y'know, in a hetero way. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
Meditation also effects the brain according to brain scans on monks doing it, so the combination might actually work. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
Think about it. Instead of facing your enemy face to face in the battlefield - killing them when they're trying to kill you - you seek them out when they're on their smoke break using a video stream that's high def enough to make out their expressions, mannerisms, things that make them seem human. Then you push a button and kill them.
I imagine it would take more than a few days come back to reality after that. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
Studies have shown that the closer one gets to one's victim the greater the trauma to the killer. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
[www.airforcetimes.com] #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
[www.amazon.com] #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
11/05/09
The problem though is that meditation works much better as a preventative measure. You really have to be doing it regularly for several years to get the best benefit out of it. It's much harder to learn after the damage is done. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
If someone close to you died, for example, you and other close kin would be left alone for several days, while other members of the community would bring food and other necessities.
I don't know if people in mourning were considered "unclean" exactly, but were regarded as being connected to spiritual forces and death, and so were dangerous to be around until they'd had time to grieve. #firstearthbattalion
11/05/09
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/06/09
11/05/09
11/05/09
10/15/09
A real life LightSaber
#military
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
How does that not make it an ethics issue?
08/20/09
But they were operating with this gas as if it was a non-lethal substance, so the category is the same.
08/20/09
I only know of one instance where somebody refrained from using a weapon because it killed too many people too fast, and it was during the american Civil War (the Gatling gun), but it's just naive to think any army is going to refrain to use anything against their foreign enemies without anybody telling them to, or even with everybody telling them to.
I'm sorry but controlling how the military uses technology is not in the scientists' hands, and no matter what they invent, a military use will probably be figured out for it.
08/20/09
@Pope John Peeps II: there's still a massive juxtoposition of scenarios there. there's a large degree of difference between a war and a hostage standoff.
@Dirk Angry: well, there are exceptions for particularly painful or devestating weapons. white phospherous and nuclear weapons as examples. employing a non-leathal tool that increases the effectiveness of ordinary, conventional weapons is par for the course. what is a laser guided missle if not a non-leathal laser making a conventional missle more effective?
08/20/09
This article is singling out bioengineering because there seems to be a disproportionate trend of using discoveries in that area to do exactly what you mentioned: Kill more people faster. I don't think anyone is suggesting that the military stop doing their jobs (regardless of ethical qualms...) The point is that these particular scientists have a greater onus of complicity on them which they should be more aware of.
08/20/09
08/20/09
The demand for scientists to consider the possible military/political use of their research leads to nothing but the complete package of the research and its possible nefarious uses delivered by the people who know more about it than anybody else.
You want to use new science in a detrimental manner to the public good, you have to think about how to go about it yourself.
08/20/09
08/20/09
If only the USA had known how to build the bomb, lots of the world would be pretty "hot" by now.
08/20/09
08/20/09
This is truly unheard of on the internet.
08/20/09
08/20/09
1) Yes, scientists should be more aware of the implications of their work. To not think about such things is either laziness or purposeful ignorance.
2) There is always going to be research carried out that has results which could be used for violent or harmful purpose. Part of understanding something (like a biological system) involves knowing how it doesn’t work or what makes it stop working. Wanting to stop these kinds of results would basically mean stopping a huge amount of research (particularly medical research).
Basically, it’s important to hold scientist responsible for their results. It’s also important to hold the people misusing the results responsible. No one party can take all the blame when research is used for evil and we need better control or regulations for biological and chemical weapons. The final point the author makes , that "all use of novel non-lethal agents such as fentanyl for law enforcement should be prohibited, or at least heavily restricted" is spot on.
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
08/20/09
Please. When I read a news article about scientific research I immediate consider how athletes, the wealthy, and/or militaries can capitalize on it. You guys got to try a different perspective from time to time.
08/20/09
In other words, most scientists don't have a fucking clue what their doing anymore than cog in a machine does.
08/20/09
08/20/09
I wish Frank Herbert and and Isaac Asimov were still here. :/
08/20/09