5 ms·

It's already the case. Crispr has changed a lot of things and make possible for an outsider, with 10.000$ and a little dedication, to alter genome of every liv

It's already the case. Crispr has changed a lot of things and make possible for an outsider, with 10.000$ and a little dedication, to alter genome of every living form. https://www.ft.com/content/9ac7f1c0-1468-4dc7-88dd-1370ead42371 https://www.ft.com/content/9ac7f1c0-1468-4dc7-88dd-1370ead42...

ethanbond 4y ago
Right and every new technology that enters this “high power, high availability” domain, the more civilizational risk we all carry.
- akimball 4y ago
  Yet the risk of non-civilization continues to exceed the risk of civilization.
- brigandish 4y ago
  Is it really true that we're more at risk now than our ancestors were? They had smaller numbers, less access to life saving technology, worse conditions to grow up in… I can accept an argument that since the advent of the cold war there may have been more than previously, but even that is conjectural.
  - ethanbond 4y ago
    Fair question. The way I see it there was never a moment before the Cold War that a single person’s decision could even have a chance at destroying human civilization (if not the species itself). Since the Cold War, that has been true every single moment of every day, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of individuals who are capable of making a decision that will trigger nuclear annihilation (check out Daniel Ellsberg’s Doomsday Machine for an alarming inquiry into this topic). Now we have the additional risk of man made biological risk amplified by cheaper and cheaper genetic engineering as well as natural biological risk amplified by a nonstop global travel network. Neither of these risk vectors existed til recently either. IMO the only analogous risks pre-cold war were what, asteroid strike or volcanic event? Those are rare and, more importantly, not modulated upwards by any human action or human system. Nuclear and bio risk probably only climb with more people and more technological advancement.

ethanbond 4y ago

Right and every new technology that enters this “high power, high availability” domain, the more civilizational risk we all carry.

akimball 4y ago
Yet the risk of non-civilization continues to exceed the risk of civilization.
brigandish 4y ago
Is it really true that we're more at risk now than our ancestors were? They had smaller numbers, less access to life saving technology, worse conditions to grow up in… I can accept an argument that since the advent of the cold war there may have been more than previously, but even that is conjectural.
- ethanbond 4y ago
  Fair question. The way I see it there was never a moment before the Cold War that a single person’s decision could even have a chance at destroying human civilization (if not the species itself). Since the Cold War, that has been true every single moment of every day, and there are probably hundreds or thousands of individuals who are capable of making a decision that will trigger nuclear annihilation (check out Daniel Ellsberg’s Doomsday Machine for an alarming inquiry into this topic). Now we have the additional risk of man made biological risk amplified by cheaper and cheaper genetic engineering as well as natural biological risk amplified by a nonstop global travel network. Neither of these risk vectors existed til recently either. IMO the only analogous risks pre-cold war were what, asteroid strike or volcanic event? Those are rare and, more importantly, not modulated upwards by any human action or human system. Nuclear and bio risk probably only climb with more people and more technological advancement.