3 ms·

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

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

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.