"Michael S. Lorrey" wrote:
> I fail to see such killing power. Much ado about nothing. Biotech
> warfare has been with us for centuries to no ill effect. The idea of
Biotech warfare with recombinant DNA hasn't been with us all that long,
in fact I'd think it has never been deployed in the theatre. The age
of designed pathogens has hardly dawned, it will take another 20
years before we have full molecular-level understanding of humanity
and humanity-pathogen interactions. (So we can better nail 'em. Both).
If you think 10 independant simultaneously released strains of
different-family viruses with long symptomless latency then delayed
kill will have no ill effect, then I'd rather not encounter what
you call "ill effect". (It'd probably clean ionize me).
> someone being smart enough to build a universal assembler and
> concurrently being dumb enough to not build it with sufficient controls
Smart does not mean ethical. Also, the information does eventually
leak out, and lands in the hands of someone far less smart (and
far less ethical). Nuclear warheads being stored in a wooden shed
behind rusty locks and a couple of hungry cold guards with AK-47s does
not strike me as a Pantheon teeming with intellectual grandeur and
glowing ethics. No, these are not tamper-proof warheads.
How long would California last if you'd be able to pick up $100 nukes
> is nonsensical. Purely Pollyanish Paranoia Posing preposterously as
> proper public politics.
By asserting there being no problem you prove the opposite.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:16 MDT