Re: Fwd: Eclectic Pseudoplague

From: Martin Moore (
Date: Wed Jun 19 2002 - 08:45:33 MDT

--- Aaron McBride <> wrote:
> If this is true, then how do I defend myself from a
> nuclear bomb? We've
> had 50+ years of technology between the invention of
> nukes and I still
> don't have a Kill-o-Nuke. I'm afraid Mr. Joy may be
> right on this one,
> even if he's wrong about the solution. The future
> is unknown - there may
> be some weapons that have no defence.

Eliezer's hypothesis still stands in that equal rates
of technological advancement among aggressors tends to
minimize actual harm from the same. The nuke scenario
could serve as an almost perfect example of this, in
that ICBM parity defined the Cold War (emphasis on

I do not believe that an SDI-type nuclear defense
shield can never be developed. How ridiculous that
this has become the mantra of the dirty-dems in DC. It
betrays a pathetic, not to mention insulting,
pessimism about our abilities. What would they have
said to their cult-hero, JFK, when he announced that
Americans would walk on the moon by the end of the

In any case, the problem lies on the demand side.
Should an ICBM threat from a "rogue" nation become a
reality, that shield would go up pretty quickly (or
the threat would be eliminated. Iraq?...)


> -Aaron
> At 05:56 AM 6/19/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> >Robert Bradbury requested that I forward this to
> SL4:
> ><headers clipped>
> >Mitch Howe recently contributed a long exploration
> of the various ways
> >nanospawn could be used to create a plague to wipe
> out humanity as
> >an argument for promoting a safe singularity soon.
> >
> >I don't buy his argument and I encourage others not
> to do so. Here is
> >how I look at it -- any "group" with "magic"
> technologies can wipe out
> >any "group" lacking "magic" technologies. We have
> existed in that
> >state for the last several million years and exist
> in that state today.
> >Historically, nature (in the form of viruses and
> bacteria) had the
> >"magic" technologies and were fought to rough
> balance by our immune
> >systems. Then humans came along and developed
> everything from gunpowder
> >to mustard gas to atomic weapons, any of which
> could have wiped out
> >significant fractions of humanity but we managed to
> develop the means
> >to defend ourselves against these various
> technologies allowing most
> >of us to avoid a premature death.
> >
> >The same will be true for nanotech. If one allows
> a group hell bent
> >on eliminating you to gain significantly superior
> technological
> >capabilities then all bets are off. If one
> balances any advances
> >in potential offensive capabilities with equivalent
> defensive
> >capabilities then the worry level should be no
> higher than it is
> >today. There is a fundamental flaw in people
> arguing the risks
> >of a nanotechnology enabled group against the
> current state of
> >the world (non-nanotech enabled). There seems to
> be an implicit
> >assumption that one (evil) group should be able to
> take a dominant
> >lead in the development of plague-spreading
> nanotech and everyone
> >who might become victims of such a situation are
> simply sitting
> >around sucking on their thumbs.
> >
> >The bottom line is this -- it doesn't matter *what*
> the technology
> >is -- if "they" can hurl more matter or energy at
> you than you have
> >the ability to defend yourself against you are
> toast. If you have
> >the ability to defend against such attacks then you
> aren't.
> >
> >All of the toxins/spore spreading scenarios are
> easily dealt with
> >by having immune systems designed to recognize and
> eliminate such
> >materials. This isn't that much different from how
> it has been over
> >the millions of years of evolution that have gotten
> us to this point.
> >
> >If you really want to be safe, you live in a deep
> underground bunker
> >where all incoming materials are irradiated with
> high levels of
> >radiation (to corrupt any nanobot programs), then
> run through
> >a plasma torch to disassemble any nanobots, then
> sorted by mass
> >to remove radioactive isotopes, leaving one to be
> fed with a
> >completely certified as safe stream of elements.
> Using this
> >approach you would be *much* safer than you are
> today wandering
> >around in a world where everything from drunk
> drivers to flesh
> >eating Streptococci can kill you.
> >
> >Robert
> >
> >
> >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~-->
> >Free $5 Love Reading
> >Risk Free!
> >
> >Post message:
> >Subscribe:
> >Unsubscribe:
> >List owner:
> >List home:
> >
> >Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:39 MDT