Russ Abbott wrote: > The argument seems to go that knowledge about (dangerous possibility) > phenomenon X might be put to bad use. Therefore we should destroy or > at least control that knowledge. > > I don't think that's completely off the mark. To the extent that we > can control knowledge we may be able to develop a bit of a safety > buffer for ourselves. Another approach is to think about what bad things could happen in theory, and actively develop tools to detect and counter those things. Things are a superset of people, so espionage can only go so far for anticipating danger. It's dangerous if sealevels rise 10 feet, or millions die in an epidemic, just as if jihadists try to blow up important buildings..
Marcus ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
