4 ms·

“ He, I know—for the question had been discussed among us long before the Time Machine was made—thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw i

“ He, I know—for the question had been discussed among us long before the Time Machine was made—thought but cheerlessly of the Advancement of Mankind, and saw in the growing pile of civilisation only a foolish heaping that must inevitably fall back upon and destroy its makers in the end. If that is so, it remains for us to live as though it were not so.” - H.G. Wells, The Time Machine That’s one of my favorite literary quotes. From long before nuclear weapons, or climate change. I think it’s entirely possible that technological civilization is unstable and self destructs. Certainly, at this point of our history, we can see what a fine line we walk. Had the twentieth century been but a little different at key moments, we could have already destroyed our civilization. As we speak there’s a land war in Europe from one great nuclear power, on the borders of the other. A third great nuclear power rises in Asia, as China is ramping up incredibly quickly - no doubt with a eye to deterrent over meddling in their aims on Taiwan. Their long term historical rivals in India, a rising economic power, will likely not sit idly by. They could be the fourth great nuclear power. That of course would force Pakistans hand to try to compete. Next door Iran desperately seeks the bomb to ensure they don’t get the freedom treatment from the West. Across the gulf lies their bitter rival Saudi Arabia, who warn they will have to pursue the bomb if Iran gets it. Meanwhile nuclear armed Israel has promised they will not tolerate a nuclear Iran. And that’s not even 100 years yet since we developed that particular technology. Nor is it the only technology we have that threatens to be more than we can handle.

nologic01 3y ago
Without being a biologist my gut feeling is that our biggest immediate self-destruct risk is biological weapons like engineered viruses and the like. Once you start tinkering with the stuff you are made off while you have not controlled primal behaviors that were conditioned during eras of near zero technological competence the writing is on the wall. In a sense the nuclear era episode was a benign rehearsal granted to us by the Universe: Here is a black box (nuclear phenomena) that you can discover, use and self-destruct if you want, but it is quite hard to play with. Not so with genetic engineering.
- slashdev 3y ago
  Indeed, as a programmer, I deeply understand the power of being able to modify the source code. Doing that with the code of life is a great responsibility we’re not ready for. What happens when it gets so easy and cheap that any malcontent group can engineer their own super virus? Will we have a defense for that?
  - nologic01 3y ago
    There can only be one defense: no malcontent group (actually no group, period) will be allowed to pursue certain technology paths, no matter what (e.g irrespective of political, ethical, cultural or other differences and opinions). This is a faint echo of the biblical forbidden tree of knowledge (for those culturally familiar) - though the punishment for disobeying is not expulsion from paradise but self-destruction. The difficulty of embedding such a cultural paradigm as a lived reality across our species is obvious. Yet it is logically unavoidable for survival on a finite planet where independent groups keep pursuing ever more powerful technologies to advance narrow interests.
    - jonhohle 3y ago
      You’re a bit off. The punishment for disobedience (which was the act of obtaining knowledge of good and evil) was death. Expulsion was not of paradise (which was the entire earth, now tainted and corrupt), but of access to eternal life. Your analogy may fit better than you thought. Regardless of your feelings about religion, Genesis 3 is not long and foundational for a significant number of groups throughout Western and Middle-eastern history.
    - slashdev 3y ago
      How does one control that? Fundamentally, technology is knowledge combined with tools. You can’t control the knowledge, so the only thing left is control access to the tools. How do you do that, on a global scale? There is precedent, but it’s not easy. With nukes we’ve been fortunate that the tools are so expensive and difficult to obtain and create that only nation states can consider them. That could change if we find a cheap way to refine uranium or produce plutonium. With biology it’s harder to control because the tools have numerous research and peaceful uses.

nologic01 3y ago

Without being a biologist my gut feeling is that our biggest immediate self-destruct risk is biological weapons like engineered viruses and the like. Once you start tinkering with the stuff you are made off while you have not controlled primal behaviors that were conditioned during eras of near zero technological competence the writing is on the wall. In a sense the nuclear era episode was a benign rehearsal granted to us by the Universe: Here is a black box (nuclear phenomena) that you can discover, use and self-destruct if you want, but it is quite hard to play with. Not so with genetic engineering.

slashdev 3y ago
Indeed, as a programmer, I deeply understand the power of being able to modify the source code. Doing that with the code of life is a great responsibility we’re not ready for. What happens when it gets so easy and cheap that any malcontent group can engineer their own super virus? Will we have a defense for that?
- nologic01 3y ago
  There can only be one defense: no malcontent group (actually no group, period) will be allowed to pursue certain technology paths, no matter what (e.g irrespective of political, ethical, cultural or other differences and opinions). This is a faint echo of the biblical forbidden tree of knowledge (for those culturally familiar) - though the punishment for disobeying is not expulsion from paradise but self-destruction. The difficulty of embedding such a cultural paradigm as a lived reality across our species is obvious. Yet it is logically unavoidable for survival on a finite planet where independent groups keep pursuing ever more powerful technologies to advance narrow interests.
  - jonhohle 3y ago
    You’re a bit off. The punishment for disobedience (which was the act of obtaining knowledge of good and evil) was death. Expulsion was not of paradise (which was the entire earth, now tainted and corrupt), but of access to eternal life. Your analogy may fit better than you thought. Regardless of your feelings about religion, Genesis 3 is not long and foundational for a significant number of groups throughout Western and Middle-eastern history.
  - slashdev 3y ago
    How does one control that? Fundamentally, technology is knowledge combined with tools. You can’t control the knowledge, so the only thing left is control access to the tools. How do you do that, on a global scale? There is precedent, but it’s not easy. With nukes we’ve been fortunate that the tools are so expensive and difficult to obtain and create that only nation states can consider them. That could change if we find a cheap way to refine uranium or produce plutonium. With biology it’s harder to control because the tools have numerous research and peaceful uses.