"Joe E. Dees" wrote:
> Loree:
> > If we do eradicate every virus, and it later turns out we need a few > > of
> > them to solve a particular problem, wouldn't we just create them?
> >
> It's a lot easier to reverse-engineer them from observed behaviors
> than to create them from scratch for specific purposes.
Why would you need to start from scratch? I would assume that while we
are eradicating them, we'll be storing the information on what they are,
how they're built, what they do... and so on. IOW, we'll be doing the
reverse engineering upfront.
There may be good and valid reasons for not destroying all viruses. It
may even be that it is simply too much trouble and not worth the effort,
but at this stage of the game, the possible evolution of viruses isn't a
reason at all as far as I can see.
I may have had a misimpression. I thought that the broad outlines of
the near term future were already agreed upon by the members of this
list. That problems such as "are viruses valuable and what can they
evolve into?" will be solvable by applying a tiny fraction of the nearly
unlimited intelligence and processing ability available.
Is superintelligence still a contested issue?
Loree Thomas
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:02:43 MDT