3 ms·
The first two, at least, are already within reach of anyone with sufficient budget. I doubt that there's any entity that's rich enough and wants nukes that doe
by Turing_Machine 3y ago
The first two, at least, are already within reach of anyone with sufficient budget.
I doubt that there's any entity that's rich enough and wants nukes that doesn't already have them. Even international pariahs like North Korea have them.
AFA the second one goes, high school kids are doing genetic engineering in class these days. There's nothing in principle that distinguishes what they do (e.g., inducing resistance to an antibiotic, because that's easy to test) from something extremely nasty (e.g., making it resistant to all known antibiotics).
- blagie 3y agoNukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. The prevalence of genetic engineering is new, is a species-threatening issue. Unless we figure out how to bring these sorts of superweapons under control, we will be extinct as a species within our children's lifetime.
- Turing_Machine 3y ago> Nukes are not within anyone's reach, or instead of teen suicides and school shootings, we'd have nuclear craters in place of some cities. I didn't say "anyone". I said "anyone who's rich enough", which excludes virtually all "teen suicides" and "school shootings". > Most of these people: https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ https://www.forbes.com/billionaires/ Could not acquire a nuke. I disagree. Strongly. If there are people willing to sell nuclear technology to the likes of Kim Jong Un, there are people willing to sell it to the Walton family heirs.