Re: [FRIAM] Killing vs. Letting Die (was Re: Google Reader and More: Google Abandoning of Apps/Services)

2013-04-29 Thread Arlo Barnes
[still going through old drafts]

I agree that killing is for most intents/purposes the same as letting die
since trying to ascertain a difference between the two is trying to find
the 'natural' state of whatever is being killed/let die, and that is often
very hard if not impossible to establish. I also agree that in some cases
(relevantly, wherein a killing is empathetic, although I would not extend
that assertion so categorically as you seem to) death is a good thing -
although I generally do not use such sensitive examples, the death of an
ailing person is also their relief from further extensive suffering.

Extending such a poignant topic to Google's actions seems quite
inappropriate, which was the intended air of my two sentences you quoted
above. If we do, however, some things hold: While it is disappointing that
Google dropped the service (let it die), how could we compare it to them
'killing' a service? It seems that the difference might be dependent on
whether Reader would continue existing in it's previous state independent
of Google, even if Google disappeared. Unless the company sells Reader, it
seems obvious that it would not. Whether that actually counts as a
significant difference is up for debate.

-Arlo James Barnes

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

[FRIAM] Killing vs. Letting Die (was Re: Google Reader and More: Google Abandoning of Apps/Services)

2013-03-15 Thread glen
Arlo Barnes wrote at 03/14/2013 10:30 PM:
 Now, there are many things Google does that could be considered evil (or
 at least heading that way; all that foofaraw with Verizon?), but not
 providing service previously provided for free is not one of them. It is
 merely annoying, or at worst (if all your workflow is locked into the
 service) frustrating/infuriating.

Back in college, I used to distract myself from homework by reading this
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/et.html.  I don't
know why.  I must have gotten a good deal on the subscription.

It was like television, I guess.  I only remember 1 article from the
whole stint, entitled something like On Killing and Letting Die.  The
idea was to draw a moral distinction (or not) between the two actions.
After college, I ran across lots of busyness people who would claim that
not acting is a decision just as much as acting in one way or another.

My own conclusion was that killing someone and letting them die are
essentially the same thing, morally speaking.  Nowadays, I may be
revising that, since I argued for pulling my dad from his machines and
as I approach the age where I may want to off myself rather than slowly
decay in bed.

My point, here, is that Google may well be committing the moral
equivalent of killing a project even though it seems like they're merely
not providing a service.

In any case, it was from this lack of a moral distinction between
killing and letting die that I drew my own private (and much criticized
by my friends) definition of evil - willful ignorance.  I.e. only
those who are unwilling to empathize, if not directly experience the
effects of their actions could ever be called evil.  That means
literally any act anyone might do, regardless of how atrocious or
pathological, could be non-evil as long as they work hard enough to
understand what their victims will(are) experience(ing).

Hence, Google could demonstrate that letting Google Reader die (by
removing its life support) is not evil by showing us that it has some
in-depth metrics for how it's absence will affect its users and the
society in which they're embedded.

-- 
== glen e. p. ropella
Laid out in amber baby



FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com