Marcin: Created page with "Yes, even death technology. Because part of creating death technology is 'we should have it but they shouldn't have it.' If death products were to be include in the pool of op..."

2021-06-08T00:29:31Z

Created page with "Yes, even death technology. Because part of creating death technology is 'we should have it but they shouldn't have it.' If death products were to be include in the pool of op..."

New page

Yes, even death technology. Because part of creating death technology is 'we should have it but they shouldn't have it.' If death products were to be include in the pool of open source knowledge - such as [[IG Farben]]'s death gases back from WW2 concentration camps - maybe the innovators would have thought twice about developing the technology in the first place. This may be controversial - but it seems logical that open access would make the innovators think twice about what they are doing. The natural disincentive in this case would be, 'what if the tech was used against me because other people had it.' OSE does not promote death technology, and we would not work on it under normal circumstances - becuase first, we believe there is no 'us and them' (see [[OSE Social Contract]]), and we develop knowhow and practice for regenerative development.

Open source does not discriminate against specific areas of endeavor. However, we know that with great power comes great responsibility - so as we teach people to build things - we emphasize the importance of teaching people to be humans at the same time (see OSE's [[Integrated Human]] concept) - so that we create an ethocracy.

Should Everything Be Open Source - Revision history

Marcin: Created page with "Yes, even death technology. Because part of creating death technology is 'we should have it but they shouldn't have it.' If death products were to be include in the pool of op..."