That's certainly a purist way of looking at it, and I don't disagree that it's the most aligned with their charter. But it also seems practically ineffective, even - no, especially - when considered within the context of that charter. Because by shutting it down (or sabotaging it), they're not just making a decision about their own technology; they're also yielding control of it to groups that are not beholden to the same constraints.

Given that their control over the technology at large is limited anyway, they are already (somewhat?) ineffective, I would think. Not sure what a really good and attainable position for them would like in that respect.

Yeah, ageeed. But that's also why I feel the whole moral sanctimony is a pointless pursuit in the first place. The tech is coming, from somewhere, whether you like it or not. Never in history has a technological revolution been stopped.