> 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.... >
Biowarfare probably hasn't caught on because it's difficult to control, like a destructive gift that keeps on giving. Its difficult to devise an antidote for something that may mutate with the chance of taking out both the target and the shooter. Tit-for-tat in a war game is not an ideal stratagem... ;) > 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... > > What's the point really, it's not like DC runs things... They just make sure the checks get cashed. Once an AGI helps us root out the cause of violence, my utopian sentiment suggests terrorism will be a null point. Rage against peace may be a future slogan. Until then, I hope we have thinking posthuman software before the stodgily human acting hardware comes available to do what humans do, stay 'right' by default by eliminating the other other 'right' or otherwise. - Nathan Cravens effortlesseconomy.com ----- 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=90258841-e9a14e
