3 ms·

Unfortunately, if the virus has already been created, the antidote has to be found ASAP. For this to happen, a large number of scientists have to know how to m

Unfortunately, if the virus has already been created, the antidote has to be found ASAP. For this to happen, a large number of scientists have to know how to make it first before knowing how to destroy it. How you decide who should have access to this information is now the problem. If they are not careful, the censoring could piss of some crazy scientist who would now announce such discoveries with a blogpost and allow anyone have access to it than through a sort of regulated process that would at least give the 'right people' a lead on the info; so they can start working on an anti-dote before is gets to the mass market. As to what kind of research should be allowed, I have no comment.

lukifer 15y ago
There is an interesting short story called "Talking To God" [1], which postulates that sentient species only survive if every individual has the ability to destroy the entire world, but chooses not to. Our capacity for mass destruction is only going to get worse. I think it's far more efficacious to look toward managing that reality than to try to postpone or prevent it. [1] http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal
- richardw 15y ago
  If so, we may be doomed. Assume there is a percentage of people who would use that ability. We need to either destroy them, or transform them. Assume they were 'fixed', our next problem would be fixing those who might temporarily be inclined to destroy the world, for example a jilted lover or anyone who is depressed and angry enough due to temporary circumstance. We then have to either ensure those circumstances never occur, or 'fix' those people. That likely covers most people, given an infinite amount of possible situations. Can't kill everybody, and 'fixing' them likely means we lose too much of what makes us human to be worth it. I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers.
  - sneak 15y ago
    > I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers. Watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project".

lukifer 15y ago

There is an interesting short story called "Talking To God" [1], which postulates that sentient species only survive if every individual has the ability to destroy the entire world, but chooses not to. Our capacity for mass destruction is only going to get worse. I think it's far more efficacious to look toward managing that reality than to try to postpone or prevent it. [1] http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal http://www.fullmoon.nu/articles/art.php?id=tal

richardw 15y ago
If so, we may be doomed. Assume there is a percentage of people who would use that ability. We need to either destroy them, or transform them. Assume they were 'fixed', our next problem would be fixing those who might temporarily be inclined to destroy the world, for example a jilted lover or anyone who is depressed and angry enough due to temporary circumstance. We then have to either ensure those circumstances never occur, or 'fix' those people. That likely covers most people, given an infinite amount of possible situations. Can't kill everybody, and 'fixing' them likely means we lose too much of what makes us human to be worth it. I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers.
- sneak 15y ago
  > I vote for taking it out of the hands of people and debugging Skynet for longer than they did in the movie. Then stop competing and enjoy the flowers. Watch "Colossus: The Forbin Project".