4 ms·
Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from m
by SubiculumCode 10y ago
Suppose we came upon a time where some new technology had emerged allowing anyone with an average intelligence to be able to create a virulent bio weapon from materials so common and available that their restriction is impossible. In this world, we are almost surely doomed, but perhaps the only hope for survival on earth (ignore space diaspora for the moment) would be from instituting an all pervasive surveilance presence. In this scenario, I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival.
One might counter that the scenario I lay out above is not possible. However I would posit that technology enables our capacities to create/preserve and to destroy. However, perhaps stemming from thr laws of thermodynamics, it does seem that our capacities to destroy is always outpacing our capacities to create or preserve, and eventually the gap between these capacities will unsettle the center which cannot hold.
- tsaoutourpants 10y agoThat's a happy Sunday afternoon thought, but we are not at that point yet. The point we are at is one in which corrupt governments seek to control us not for our own safety, but because they crave power and control.
- SubiculumCode 10y agoI agree. However, I frequently see absolute declarations about how freedom should not be curtailed for security, and while I believe that is true today, I can envision a possible future where that is not possible without leading to near or complete extinction. Therefore I find it useful foil to shake up absolutisms.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago> I do not see the value of privacy trumping survival. Survival is not a value. Survival is a prerequisite for a lot of other values, but it's not a value in and of itself. As many people have difficulty grasping what living in a world without privacy would be like, let me propose a different solution: We'll put everyone into solitary confinement, to ensure everyone's survival, as I do not see the value of freedom of movement trumping survival. Would you agree with that as well? If not, why not? Also, you might want to realize that surveillance does not ensure that your set of values gets enforced. It's the values of whoever manages to obtain that power, and whose power as a result of the surveillance might be impossible to challenge. The idea that you could create such a power structure and then guarantee that it's going to be used exclusively to prevent that bio weapon from being built and used is extremely naive. You would instead most likely find yourself alive, living in a world that makes you constantly wish for being dead, but thanks to the surveillance unable to kill yourself.
- SubiculumCode 10y agoYou presuppose many things about my intentions. I frequently post on the internet about the need for freedom and privacy today. However, as I briefly laid out, I do wonder whether technological innovations will at one point allow lone individuals to kill not a few dozen (with semiautomatics), but tens of thousands, and if at that point our current models will be insufficient for the purpose of survival...that is, no survival without giving up many freedoms. This is not a value judgement, indeed I would applaud the many who would rather die than be controlled completely.
- SubiculumCode 10y agoDisagree should not equal downvote.
- SubiculumCode 10y agoObviously there are some really passionate freedom lovers here verging on fundalmentalists; will brook no alternative viewpoints from even being hypothesized.
- brokenmachine 10y agoIf I can make a super weapon from air and water, how will extra surveillance stop a terrorist from doing that? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, are you saying we need more surveillance to protect us because weapons are becoming easier to produce?