My skills won't be used to kill people - Strange Brew

I found very little appeal in this year's job fair. Maybe it was the fact that people still think dressing up will impress reps into hiring them. Maybe it was because there were no refreshments and I was thirsty. I never got a name tag - maybe that was it.

This year's fair had a less-than-satisfying selection of job opportunities - at least three quarters of the booths were employing in military-related fields.

"Come work for us and build more precise targeting systems," they beckoned to me. "No, work for us and develop longer range missiles with nuclear warheads." I tried to block them out: "Be a secret agent for the NSA." I tried harder: "Come work for the FBI." It didn't work: "Make helicopters that can carry enough bombs to blow up Russia."

Surface warfare seems to be "in" these days, as many of the booths boasted the subtitle. Seems the military has a curious monopoly over the JHU job fair.

Maybe I'm in the minority when I say this, but I don't find working for the military terribly appealing. It might just be my non-violent side talking out of turn, but I'm going to come right out and say it: I don't want to be responsible for killing people. There. I said it. Hey, call me a commie, but I don't want to work for a missile company, and I want no part of the NSA, the FBI or the Pentagon.

Truthfully, after four years of higher learning, I'd expect most of us would like to be productive in the workforce, helping to create new things on the cutting edge of technology. Indeed, many of us will become doctors or researchers, contributing our share to a wealth of knowledge about mankind. Others will be Nobel Prize winners or professors or rocket scientists.

Unfortunately, military job opportunities seem to be the opposite of productive. Whatever field you're in, the intention is pretty much the same: your hard work will be used to destroy someone else's hard work.

If it weren't for your computer skills, the targeting system on the nuclear submarine wouldn't be as good as it is and your physics research helped make those missiles as powerful as they are. Just because you're not the one pressing the big red button does not pardon you for what happens with your work.

But all of our enemies are building bigger bombs and more precise weapons; surely we must keep up with them to ensure our safety? If I were drafted to war, wouldn't I want a shiny new M-16 over the not-as-intimidating machete the enemy wields? This is the classic argument by the military that lead us to the nuclear arms race - at the peak of the Cold War, the world had 60,000 nuclear weapons. A nuclear exchange of a mere 300 of them could have resulted in human extinction (and obviously still can). Why the overkill?

This argument has been made obsolete since the global economy took over - international dependencies run so deep that it would be suicide to attempt to use any significant amount of force on virtually anyone. (Then again, maybe my argument is too little too late in light of recent events and the anticipated Jihad - there are countries that value martyrdom over global economics and are willing to commit suicide. Though if Arab countries were our only threat, a fraction of our current arsenal could adequately subdue them.)

But I digress. Capitalism is inherently self-destructive. Every economic gain in a capitalist society is at the expense of someone or something. We are at an age where an American cannot live without literally being responsible for the harm of someone or something. Whether it be your table made from old growth trees or your carnivorous diet supporting a meat industry that kills millions of animals daily; your clothing made by the hands of sweatshop workers in Asia or your plastic dishware that was made by a factory that pollutes a nearby stream that residents have gotten cancer from.

It would be practically impossible (and insane) to follow one's influence on the rest of the Earth from day to day actions. I suppose this leaves very few employment opportunities for a highly conscientious individual. But whether you feel guilty about the genetically mutated chickens when you eat General Tso's or not or when you invest in stocks of Phillip Morris (makers of tobacco and alcohol products), it is truly irrelevant at this point.

Your career option will likely not have a serious effect on human suffering - unless you choose something that is directly related to human suffering. Let me stress this: The military is in the business of human suffering.

So after all is said and done, we've spent $120 thousand for four years of a preparatory education. I dare say I didn't do all this so I could blow something up. (Excuse my unsophisticated viewpoint here, but there aren't many other ways to look at working for Acme Nuclear Warheads Co.)

I suspect most of have taken the college step in life so we may go find a happy medium between being a productive member of society and doing something that makes us happy. Maybe that decision will consider "doing good" a factor as well. Job fairs exist to aid in that decision. Unfortunately, this year's job fair didn't offer many opportunities for students with a conscience.