4 ms·

This is just beyond obtuse. More people having access will mean more people who are untrustworthy having access, which means more malicious action. (Unless you

This is just beyond obtuse. More people having access will mean more people who are untrustworthy having access, which means more malicious action. (Unless you want to setup some toy scenario where the only bad faith actors people on the planet are biochemistry researchers). As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out.

brigandish 4y ago
Pandora's box is open, technology will spread regardless of what you do. You want to limit tech that will become cheaper and easier to build through the efforts of legitimate, well meaning research, and try to stop knowledge spreading as we wish for there to be more people in this line of work. More people having access will mean more people who are untrustworthy having access is entirely right but whether "which means more malicious action" is a corollary is up for debate, as we've seen with violent action around the world via many different types of weaponry. In this talk[1] at DEF CON, John Sotos pleads with hackers to put their time into learning how to combat biological weapons. He points out that the tech will move forward to being able to target more and more specific populations. Like any other weapon, knowing that your enemy has it too and can hurt you or those you care about with it is a highly effective deterrent. > As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out. Two things here. Firstly, trauma surgery and techniques from the military and places where bullet wounds are common have benefited the rest of us for when we get into scrapes of even a non-violent kind. Secondly, defence does not always lag behind attack, you assume that the future would look like now but that is to ignore the history of any tech of such nature. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY

brigandish 4y ago

Pandora's box is open, technology will spread regardless of what you do. You want to limit tech that will become cheaper and easier to build through the efforts of legitimate, well meaning research, and try to stop knowledge spreading as we wish for there to be more people in this line of work. More people having access will mean more people who are untrustworthy having access is entirely right but whether "which means more malicious action" is a corollary is up for debate, as we've seen with violent action around the world via many different types of weaponry. In this talk[1] at DEF CON, John Sotos pleads with hackers to put their time into learning how to combat biological weapons. He points out that the tech will move forward to being able to target more and more specific populations. Like any other weapon, knowing that your enemy has it too and can hurt you or those you care about with it is a highly effective deterrent. > As for building your own vaccine. Even large nations were not able to develop effective ones. It’s easier to put a bullet in someone than it is to take it out. Two things here. Firstly, trauma surgery and techniques from the military and places where bullet wounds are common have benefited the rest of us for when we get into scrapes of even a non-violent kind. Secondly, defence does not always lag behind attack, you assume that the future would look like now but that is to ignore the history of any tech of such nature. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKQDSgBHPfY