4 ms·

Consider the potential unintended consequences of de-inventing the bomb. The cold war would probably have been hot in this case.

hackerlight 4y ago
Missing the point. If lone wolf terrorists have access to engineered viruses or atomic bombs, that's bad in a unique way, because there's probably going to be >= 1 unhinged people who will use it, and all you need is 1. If we're dealing with a world where only states can access the tech, the probability that >= 1 state will be sufficiently unhinged to use it is far lower. We will eventually need a metaphorical CTRL+Z on tech, probably through government power and maybe world government. The fragility of us as organisms is about constant, but tech is going to keep getting better and cheaper.
- nine_k 4y ago
  We don't have a Ctrl-Z, but we have a sort of a pause button. Non-proliferation agreements, IEAE inspections, bans on selling certain products that are key enablers of production of atomic weapons. With viruses, it's a bit harder, medical work us hard to distinguish from weapons work.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    This is again referring to the current state of affairs and therefore misses the point. These controls work for now because such tech is expensive and difficult. A future where that's not the case isn't so unlikely.
- schiffern 4y ago
  Lone wolf terrorists wouldn't result in annihilating ~every city on Earth, but state actors might. One nuclear bombing is bad. 1,000 nuclear bombings is worse. Risk = probability × outcome. It's not a choice between only state actors having access vs only lone wolf terrorists. The issue of nuclear disarmament is choosing between states + terrorists (the status quo) vs only terrorists.
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    Correct when it comes to present day nukes, maybe not if we're talking engineered viruses or some as yet undiscovered weapon. Anyway, I think the point stands that there's significant novel risks posed if individuals of the future are capable of destroying cities if they feel like it, and there will unfortunately need to be a paradigm shift around privacy and government involvement if that day comes.
    - schiffern 4y ago
      Perhaps the Great Filter is, "are you smart enough, as a species, to put the (various) genies back in the (various) bottles?" Different genies call for different bottles, naturally.

hackerlight 4y ago

Missing the point. If lone wolf terrorists have access to engineered viruses or atomic bombs, that's bad in a unique way, because there's probably going to be >= 1 unhinged people who will use it, and all you need is 1. If we're dealing with a world where only states can access the tech, the probability that >= 1 state will be sufficiently unhinged to use it is far lower. We will eventually need a metaphorical CTRL+Z on tech, probably through government power and maybe world government. The fragility of us as organisms is about constant, but tech is going to keep getting better and cheaper.

nine_k 4y ago
We don't have a Ctrl-Z, but we have a sort of a pause button. Non-proliferation agreements, IEAE inspections, bans on selling certain products that are key enablers of production of atomic weapons. With viruses, it's a bit harder, medical work us hard to distinguish from weapons work.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  This is again referring to the current state of affairs and therefore misses the point. These controls work for now because such tech is expensive and difficult. A future where that's not the case isn't so unlikely.
schiffern 4y ago
Lone wolf terrorists wouldn't result in annihilating ~every city on Earth, but state actors might. One nuclear bombing is bad. 1,000 nuclear bombings is worse. Risk = probability × outcome. It's not a choice between only state actors having access vs only lone wolf terrorists. The issue of nuclear disarmament is choosing between states + terrorists (the status quo) vs only terrorists.
- hackerlight 4y ago
  Correct when it comes to present day nukes, maybe not if we're talking engineered viruses or some as yet undiscovered weapon. Anyway, I think the point stands that there's significant novel risks posed if individuals of the future are capable of destroying cities if they feel like it, and there will unfortunately need to be a paradigm shift around privacy and government involvement if that day comes.
  - schiffern 4y ago
    Perhaps the Great Filter is, "are you smart enough, as a species, to put the (various) genies back in the (various) bottles?" Different genies call for different bottles, naturally.