John Marlow wrote:
> So--biological enhancements will it seems be outlawed for now--and
> weapons will not. Three cheers for government.
John, you should put a smiley on that. The government hasn't
outlawed "biological enhancements". Its only "considering"
outlawing a narrow definition of "cloning" which affects
the reproduction rights of infertile couples much more than
it impacts anything most extropians or transhumanists would
like to do.
Now, re:
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - A Bush administration review is recommending the
> United States not support a draft agreement to enforce an
> international treaty banning biological weapons, Sunday's New York
> Times reports, quoting an unidentified senior official.
We should watch to see if anything concrete turns up about *why*
the recommendation came out that way. I can see why one
wouldn't want to sign a treaty that gave an illusion of
safety that really wasn't there. The "negotiators" in
Geneva could all pack up and go home and you would never
get any real increase in security at all.
This may be the tip of the iceberg on why you cannot (effectively)
legislate against nanotech (enforcement is futile). Though if
you had quasi-ubiquitous surveillance based on MEMS-based robotic
cameras and a *lot* of sophisticated computers analyzing what
they see, you might be able to police biotech/nanotech labs.
It would be a pretty unpleasant environment for someone such
as myself to work in but there are probably people who could
adapt to it.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 10:00:06 MDT