4 ms·
The premise of this article: Because a super-villain like attack “could” occur, we need to solve a technology threat, with more technology... that is more likel
by mikeg8 7y ago
The premise of this article: Because a super-villain like attack “could” occur, we need to solve a technology threat, with more technology... that is more likely to be hacked and misused (eventually). Don’t agree.
If the “state” can’t defend me from fanastical threats, it serves no purpose and we should abolish it? Nope, don’t agree again. I accept that my state can’t guarantee ultimate protections from a Vin Diesel-like movie threat situation. However, my state provides other benefits like: funding for education, business regulations and tax credits, lending regulation, infrastructure build/repair, funding construction projects (my industry), wildlife protection, park systems, etc.
Joke of an article.
- bob1029 7y agoThis is the basic feeling I left with as well. In terms of the hypothetical threat presented here (millions of autonomous kill drones), there are actually solid defensive measures that can be taken, even if they may not be absolute (aka stopping evil superman). Some are direct - I.e. microwave/laser/kinetic countermeasures which a nation state could quite easily deploy, whereas others (the more important ones IMO) are indirect - I.e. Monitoring supply chains and persons of interest., following up on anonymous tips (aka clerk at hardware store concerned with customer purchase, or the guy complaining about the secret drone factory noise next door). The value of the nation state, even confined to this hypothetical scenario, is still there for me. There is far more to this than the one perspective of "techno-horror vs hapless government" presented in the article.