4 ms·
What about a future machine that has the possibility of 3D printing 20 MT nuclear weapons?
by williamcotton 3y ago
What about a future machine that has the possibility of 3D printing 20 MT nuclear weapons?
- nwiswell 3y agoIf it requires enriched uranium ink then that's fine.
- gustavus 3y agoIf we get to the point where we are able to 3D print 20 MT nuclear weapons we've probably got replicators from star trek at that point living in a post scarcity society and then I will be 3D printing me a space ship to "Boldly go where no man has gone before."
- user_7832 3y agoI'm not sure what the HN guidelines are for commenting about other comments but if your earlier comment was in jest/sarcasm, it might help to add an /s
- vasco 3y agoOr you could use your interpreting skills to detect it yourself.
- user_7832 3y agoI unfortunately am not the best at detecting sarcasm in real life, and infinitely worse online. Anyway, it appears his comment is no longer flagged/dead.
- Brian_K_White 3y agoWait, was THAT sarcasm? Because if you ask me saying that someone should be able to detect the true intent of the original comment MUST be sarcasm. But then I'm not so much detecting as deducing.
- snapplebobapple 3y agoLiving in a world that is post scarcity on 20 MT nuclear weapons is kind of exciting while being terrifying. I hope we become a multisolar species before that happens because we will need to be able to lose a few when the above happens...
- williamcotton 3y agoSee, now this is where I wanted the conversation to go! Reductio ad absurdum? Dial up the absurdity and it’s at least science fiction! How far off is a consumer product that has been “locked down” but otherwise capable of printing devices of increasingly larger scales of destruction? Are we not already on this trajectory?
- willk 3y agoThat is some real whataboutism though. You can build a gun with a machine shop too. You don't need a background check to buy a lathe though, do you?
- aidenn0 3y ago> You don't need a background check to buy a lathe though, do you? Not yet...
- Loughla 3y agoWhat purpose did this comment serve for you? What, honestly, were you trying to convey? I'm confused.
- williamcotton 3y agoWe should not normalize the presumption of criminal intent, nor restrict even those that have been convicted in the past from utilizing technology just because it could be used for evil. The purpose of my comment? Reductio ad absurdum. I’m quite surprised at the negative response to be honest. The original comment put no limits on their claims that “utilizing technology” should be regulated. Do people not read comments as a linear progression of call and response?
- lrvick 3y agoYou can already buy a CRISPr kit at home with everything you need to genetically modify a coronavirus to be dramatically more deadly with a long incubation time for maximum damage. You can also easily build a drone with a GPS from commonly available parts, then strap a bomb to it made from match heads and PVC pipe and give it a destination to fly to. There are an insane number of ways anyone moderately intelligent can cause a massive loss to human life if that is their goal. We should be thankful most violent types are not smart enough to do anything worse than pull a trigger. The only way to stop humans from hurting each other is strap us all in solitary confinement VR pods.