Hi, > Why does discussion never (unless I've missed something - in which case > apologies) focus on the more realistic future "threats"/possibilities - > future artificial species as opposed to future computer simulations?
While I don't agree that AGI is less realistic than artificial biological species, I agree the latter are also interesting. What do you have to say about them, though? ;-) One thing that seems clear to me is that engineering artificial pathogens is an easier problem than engineering artificial antibodies. The reason biowarfare has failed so far is mostly a lack of good delivery mechanisms: there are loads of pathogens that will kill people, but no one has yet figured out how to deliver them effectively ... they die in the sun, disperse in the wind, drown in the water, whatever.... If advanced genetic engineering solves these problems, then what happens? Are we totally screwed? Or will we be protected by the same sociopsychological dynamics that have kept DC from being nuked so far: the intersection of folks with a terrorist mindset and folks with scientific chops is surprisingly teeny... Thoughts? -- Ben G ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&id_secret=90224593-1b6491
