Re: Long term self-protection [was Re: BIAS: CNN commits fraud...]

From: Brett Paatsch (paatschb@optusnet.com.au)
Date: Tue May 20 2003 - 21:09:51 MDT

  • Next message: Damien Broderick: "RE: Plato's big lie"

    Robert Bradbury wrote:
    > On Tue, 20 May 2003, Brett Paatsch wrote:
    >
    > > I reckon the next Extro is safe. Perhaps in no small part
    > > because the next Extro is unlikely to be seen as a serious
    > > threat to anyone.
    >
    > If you believe this then there are large segments of the human
    > population whose points of view you do not understand well.
    > Muslim fundamentalists, Christians, esp. of the "born again"
    > variety, and much of the Presidential Bioethics Committee come
    > immediately to mind.

    I meant the next Extro as a *particular* conference/meeting place
    not as the set of memes that extropes and transhumanists propagate.

    I think a physical attack on an ExI meet from people holding
    conflicting views is anticipating a level of political relevance (and
    targetability) that is a problem most transhumanist organisations are
    still working towards.

    Unfortuately (imo) the "entropic vectors" as opposed to the extropic
    ones seem to have gained political impetus in the last year or so. I
    think the tech progress is still happening (fortunately) but on the
    political front it seems to me some substantial hits have been taken.
    (ie. in stem cells, in gene therapy, extended FDA jurisdiction, the
    emergence of a niche of what for lack of a better phrase I'll call the
    dying-with-grace-to-make-room-for-the-next-generation-movement,
    "bioethicists" and social commentators with little to say but peddling
    the easy message of fear, uncertainty and doubt seem to be becoming
    a new industry. Cryonics seems to have had a bad year PR wise). This
    *could* be all just be a personal view and distorted (others located
    elsewhere may be seeing things differently). Meanwhile international law
    (for whatever its was worth and I know that there are a variety of views
    of that on this list) and law *isn't* morality, seems to have taken a pretty
    straight hit this year too. Unfortunately 2002/2003 looks to me
    somewhat more like a win for the "forces of entropy" than "extropy".

    I am sure that some parts of the human pool (including some Iraqi
    citizens do see things quite differently.).

    (Anyone) please insert counter arguments (wins for extropy over
    entropy here) where they will be read with real appreciation and
    relish.

    > > I think I accept the theses that in order for an intelligent desperate
    > > person to cause havoc (terrorists, or perhaps a better example
    > > Timothy McVeigh) all the is necessary is that they be willing to give
    > > up their lives as a sacrifice.
    >
    > No! That is one of the key points to understand about technologies
    > becoming smaller, cheaper and more available.

    Your right. I was off point (or making another point). Technology
    does changes the risk calculation in that for some particular knowledge
    enabled individuals they may well be able to launch attacks remotely
    and with relatively (compared to McVeigh) less chance of being caught
    or of having to die for "their cause".

    >.. One of the important things
    > to recognize about bioterrorism is that one can personally have
    > long since departed the scene when people start dropping like flies.

    Yes.

    > > Fortunately probably more people are
    > > capable of acquiring the destructive knowledge base but far fewer
    > > will adopt the perspective that their own lives are so worth the price
    > > of making their point.
    >
    > One should remember that soviet workers in the bioarms industry
    > were generally vaccinated against the weapons they were working on.

    I think the soviets in the cold war area had some political
    sophistications that terrorists organisations like al quida don't need to
    bother with. Vaccination programs still require some sort of scale
    (though I can see that this will be reduced). They also presuppose a
    value being placed on the "deliverymen" that I think many modern
    terror groups might not need to bother with.

    If I was to try and wage a terror war on the US I wouldn't worry too
    much about the biotech deliverymen. I reckon US foreign policy is
    making these a commodity resource. (Though I did read today that
    actual deaths from "terrorist attacks" are down this year compared to
    last").

    It makes sense to decouple delivery from manufacture. Its logistically
    neater. I reckon the bin ladens are more than willing to sacrifice a few
    "pawns". The "pawns" are so numerous and have so little to loose.

    > > "Oklahoma bombings" as incidents are one thing, are we going to
    > > see them as a sort of syndrome? What if anything is the defence?
    >
    > I don't know -- there seem to be two very different hazards.

    Yes.

    > The first is where an individual wants to make a statement
    > about their hatred or political philosophy (the suicide bombings
    > in the Mid-East) come to mind.

    It is about hatred on one level but I'd try and see it as political
    philosophy because that's how I imagine they'd see it. Calling it hatred
    just whacks a crude label on the problem and doesn't come to grips
    with it or facilitate the search for solutions. Not that these solutions are
    likely to be easy to find.

    > The second is where an individual
    > wants to simply eliminate persons, a group, a nationality, etc.
    > The second group would have to do nothing more than infect the
    > conference room the night before an Extro Conf. or get a job
    > preparing the food for a Conf. diner, etc.

    Yep. But again I reckon the likely targets are President Bush,
    and Prime Ministers Blair and Howard with these sorts of attacks.
    I imagine the Rumsfelds and co have given some sort of increased
    attention to the possibility of bio-attacks but the technology and
    the availability to produce new bioweapons probably means they'd
    be vulnerable around now.

    I reckon were going to see a further development of the IRA cell
    style form of terrorist with decoupled weapons (including bioweapons
    manufacturing and delivery systems (martyrs) so that the US supremacy
    in military force is mitigated and the premium on smart and expensive
    "intelligence" will go up. Sadly this is not likely to auger well for civil
    libs, or ultimately I suspect commerce.

    Brett Paatsch



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 20 2003 - 21:23:47 MDT