RB believesYHWHtechnology will save us, but how?
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/01/...ering-machine/
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/wei...river.2012.pdf
Printable View
RB believesYHWHtechnology will save us, but how?
http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/01/...ering-machine/
http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/wei...river.2012.pdf
This sounded familiar until I realized I read it in the New Yorker not long ago:
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2...a_fact_specter
It's a fascinating and terrifying idea, and I'm surprised no lone billionaire hasn't thought about doing this.
I suppose this is the flip side of a private space industry, the ability to alter the global climate on pretty short notice. Just like the flip side of the private bio-engineering industry, the ability to create a monster flu that kills a couple hundred million people in one season. And the still sci-fi flip side of the nano-engineering industry, the accidental reduction of the planet to gray goo. And the flip side to private AI research, the creation of a Hal 9000 or a Skynet let loose into the global internet..... Ugh. What was that TransHumanist guy's name, the one who used Obi-Wan as an avatar? He and I talked some about the implications of the trends of human technological prowess, becoming faster, cheaper, better, easier....
Alberjohns.
:haha: :up:
What's so funny?
Not sure I'm following here. Why is this the flip side of private anything? Are you suggesting that governments aren't as likely to alter global climates, create deadly bioweapons, or engineer a future nanotechnology doomsday weapon? That only private companies could create rogue AIs?Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
I think if history has shown as anything it is that government has and will be at the forefront of all of these terrors.
Probably our government has already done some of these things. Generally speaking, though, it's individuals, or very small cadres of like-minded nut jobs, that do things like mail bombs and bioweapons to people, shoot up schools and movie theaters, fly jet planes into buildings or set off oil-fertilizer bombs out front, or 'drink the coolaid' in some other nasty way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
I believe the movie theater shooter was a grad student before he lost his mind; consider if he was a grad student in biotech and worked in a lab doing genetics work, say on the H1N1 virus. It isn't too far fetched to see him releasing something he thought would kill a lot of people. Sure the professor running the lab might do that too, and maybe an officer in the military might do something similar with a military bio-weapon, but I don't see the DOD letting loose a bio-weapon on the public as a matter of government policy.
But a corporation totally would as a matter of policy?Quote:
Sure the professor running the lab might do that too, and maybe an officer in the military might do something similar with a military bio-weapon, but I don't see the DOD letting loose a bio-weapon on the public as a matter of government policy.
I'm not sure I agree with your premise. Individuals can, have, and will do terrible things. No question about it. Governments though excel at whole-sale and indiscriminate slaughter, war, and genocide. To say the real threat to humanity comes from the insane few as opposed to tried and true governments - governments who have a proven track record of time and time again excelling at killing people - makes me question your lens.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Because governments have a good record of not committing atrocities? Pull the other one.Quote:
I believe the movie theater shooter was a grad student before he lost his mind; consider if he was a grad student in biotech and worked in a lab doing genetics work, say on the H1N1 virus. It isn't too far fetched to see him releasing something he thought would kill a lot of people. Sure the professor running the lab might do that too, and maybe an officer in the military might do something similar with a military bio-weapon, but I don't see the DOD letting loose a bio-weapon on the public as a matter of government policy.
I think I've been maneuvered into an argument over whether a government lab is more dangerous than a corporate or university lab and frankly that's impossible to argue either way simply out of ignorance. And I'm not interested in making that argument at all anyway. The argument I WANT to make is that as powerful technology becomes cheaper and more widely available the odds that a crazy/ reckless dude might do something horrible/ stupid and unleash huge harm on the world grow. Do either of you disagree with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
I think some of your libertarian ideology is leaking here. The existance of government is no threat to humanity - government IS human civilization, humans would still be grunting in the mud without it. And by government I mean essentially some kind of central authority that coordinates human cooperation, be it the tribal chief, the village elders, the king, or whatever elected mess you have. Yes with the technological power available today some governments can decide to literally kill everyone. And they can dabble in extremely dangerous technologies. So I guess this discussion boils down to availability. As I said in my last post, as these techs become cheaper and more widely available, the danger that I agree with you already exists, becomes greater.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
Oh, without a doubt my libertarian ideology is bleeding into this discussion. I do believe I understand the gist of what you mean, but at the same time I believe your fears are misplaced. There's a far greater chance, in my estimation, of a government, be it foreign or domestic, unleashing one of these horrors on humanity than a private individual or private enterprise.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Oh, but the track record of private enterprises is not that great either. Seveso, Fukushima, Contergan, diverse oil spills, just to name some examples.
Bhopal was probably worse than any of those you mentioned.
I don't believe my argument was that private enterprise is perfect. Of course you'll have accidents, natural disasters, oversight, greed, short sightedness, the same happenstance and vices that comprise any human institution.Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
What you don't generally see is the same levels of intent, malice, and contempt of life that many governments display, to their own citizens and to civilians in other countries. I don't believe the companies and corporations involved in each of those tragedies woke up that day and planned and executed those horrifying industrial disasters. I don't know if the same can be said of many governments, including my own.
Three words: BP Gulf spill.
And I don't see why malice and contempt are hard to believe, considering the fact that if companies were actual persons they'd fulfill many criterias for psychopaths.
I don't believe that was a malicious event, and I don't believe it was planned and orchestrated by any of the parties involved. Do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
They certainly did not consider possible impacts on the ecology or the humans nearby when they went around or neglected safety procedures. That's enough for me to label it "malice".
I also don't see which magic barrier there is between political and corporate leaders to make the former so much more "evil". Maybe in scale, but then again, BP has shown that it's very well able to scale up.
Can the liberals at least agree governments have been far more likely to engage in whole sale slaughter then corporations?
I find your use of the past tense interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Everything after I post this will be past tense by the time you read it. In the future I also believe that governments are far more likely to engage in whole sale slaughter. Clear enough?Quote:
Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
I see there's some confusion in your head regarding grammar. Nothing new there really, I mean stuff like "future tense" or "past tense" and their intrinsic differences as to the meaning of statements simply is something that obviously goes right over your head.
Concerning your latter statement: Well, that's only because governments are usually larger than corporations. I mean, what you're saying is like stating that "a mature elephant is more likely to crush a large amount of ants than a baby elephant".
There's nothing inherent in corporations which makes them somehow non-sociopathic in nature. I mean, what is one to think of companies which develop drugs which are intended to save lives and which do stuff like this at the same time?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-6261919.html