Now if I was to design, test, and debug these devices, then release the blueprints along with a manifesto that lists what I feel are problems in society and who I feel are causing the problems, how would that be different from what Thiel is doing?
You're right, I should more closely mimic Thiel by hiring some talking heads for social media platforms. One to disseminate the blueprints, and the other for the manifesto.
It's not my argument, it's the argument of the person I'm responding to.
> Some of you reading this are going to huff and just disregard it, but for Thiel, preventing potential massive tragedy in the future is likely worth a tradeoff of some people being "harmed" now.
What I'm asking is how many degrees of separation is needed to make what OP is saying Thiel is doing acceptable.
As far as I can tell, "harmed" is in quotes because the so-called harm would not even have been recognized as such in previous generations (unless you can provide counterexamples)
That doesn't make sense because the hypothetical alternative that Thiel is trying to prevent an atrocity by conducting less of atrocity. It's a the needs of the many out weigh the needs of the few argument.
If there wasn't something substantial on the table we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Now if I was to design, test, and debug these devices, then release the blueprints along with a manifesto that lists what I feel are problems in society and who I feel are causing the problems, how would that be different from what Thiel is doing?