3 ms·
Kelly Bets on Civilization
- coldtea 4y ago>It’s not that you should never do this. Every technology has some risk of destroying the world; the first time someone tried vaccination, there was an 0.000000001% chance it could have resulted in some weird super-pathogen that killed everybody. The argument is about what we should risk, and when it's "worth it". But this depends on our time-of-action risk calcultion, not an update current estimation. So, while this "0.000000001% chance" might be our current estimation of such a risk (or it might even be lower), it doesn't sound remotely close to what the estimation of the risk should have been at the time. With the very little they knew about biology and virology at the time and not even knowing about DNA and other such mechanisms (and knowing they know very little), plus being aware that such dangerous pathogens did exist and have had killed millions in historical memory (the plague for one), they should have assumed a much larger risk. >Leaded gasoline, chlorofluorocarbon-based refrigerants, thalidomide for morning sickness - all of these were high-tech ideas that ended up going badly, not to mention all the individual planes that crashed or rockets that exploded. But nuclear energy proliferation wont be, because reasons. (Weren't the technologists in those days when those were a thing also OK with leaded gasoline, chlorofluorocarbon-based refrigerants, and thalidomide for morning sickness?)