I've been very pleased at the responses to the posting that
started this thread. Clearly these are topics people have
been thinking about for some time.
But saying that "we've been over this before" or "Bill knows
computers, but doesn't understand *this* field as well as *I*
do") doesn't help to much to still my worries. Can anyone
provide pointers to convincing counter arguements?
We don't have to much time to provide safeguards against some
of these problems, either. What's the betting that some military
lab is, at *this* moment, creating a bug (if they have not already
done so) with the lethality of Ebola and the ease of transmission
of flu? Or how about a racially targetted disease (too much/not
enough melanin and you're dead)?
Moore's Law applies to other fields of research too. What can be
done only in a highly funded lab today will be a high-school
project in ten years.
I still maintain that this article will be used by statists and
authoritarians to justify their control.
Peter
