Deus Ex Writer Discusses 'Dangerous Technology' 479
Dan Weaver writes "One of the writers for the exceptionally good action RPG Deus Ex has authored a rather thought-provoking Salon article on the Bill-Joy theme of dangers posed by emergent technologies and the difficulties that police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant) encounter in dealing with them. In the light of revelations about China's tardiness and confusion in addressing the SARS epidemic, this article is particularly timely."
police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasant) (Score:4, Insightful)
well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Offtopic)
at least we're not getting shelled, anyway.
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:4, Interesting)
A popular mistake, but still a mistake. In fact, the Communist Party officials lived in constant terror. Stalin was holding their closest relatives in gulags as hostages, and they themselves never knew the day of their fall. Communism was a living hell for everyone involved. Party officials in the first place.
http://www.wsws.org/exhibits/1937/lecture1.htm
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance:
One: we live in a police state.
Two: Americans are more likely to be rotten s
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2, Insightful)
The third option is that the police system is superior, and thus catches a higher percentage of dangerous criminals...
Not saying that is the case, but it IS another possible explanation
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know if it's because of poor people not having many alternatives to crime, historical reasons, more open borders (criminals probably move more often) or because it's such a damn big place (hard to control and plan). (-: Go check some criminologist researchers, or something, don't discuss it with computer nerds like us... :-)
Don't worry about USA being "special" in this way -- that kind of problems are probably coming
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
Above is the definition of police state. Sorry, the USA doesn't fit that description. Your observation that a lot of people are in jail could be easily tied to our strong economy.
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
All of it? I think it's pretty terrorizing to the populace to think that, for growing a plant you can have your house and car taken from you.
And the police befriend people and then prosecute them. So it terrorizes the populace into being afraid of their friends.
We proved prohibition doesn't work back in the 1920's. Tactics are getting scarier, even raiding shops that sell certain pipes which can be used to smoke anything, including tobacco. As an
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Insightful)
If growing a plant is illegal, then you should be arrested.
So-called victemless crimes like the above simply underscore the OP's point. As as been said, you can't rule innocemt men. When a government passes laws protecting one from oneself, I see it as a sign of oppresive government.
By the way I'm not just talking about Prohibition (past & present). I'm also talking about things like The Seat Belt Law(tm), bought to us by our friendly insurance companies.
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2)
The USA is a huge and diverse country. How can you take any aspect of it and simplify it down to only two options? Don't see a few shades of gray there?
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who hasn't figured out that the United States is a police state just hasn't been paying attention. This is really not a matter of opinion. The fact is that the U.S. has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other nation in the world. There are two possible explanations for this circumstance:
There are two types of people in the world: those that divide everything into two possibilities and those that don't. Is it possible there are several reasons, including that the U.S., like
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:3, Funny)
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2)
It may, but your explanation is demonstrably false. If, as you assert, we have better law enforcement, why then are our crime rates much higher in most categories (particularly violent crime) than other industrialized Western democracies? Better law enforcement, if defined in any rational manner, ought to lead to lower crime rates, not higher ones.
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
If that isn't a police state, I don't know what is...
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:5, Insightful)
Well now, that depends on what you think the minimum qualifications for a police state are.
Right now the government can come and kidnap you, then imprison you indefinitely without any recourse to the court system and in complete violation of the U.S. Constitution. I use the word 'kidnap' because they don't even have to arrest you; all they have to do is declare that you're a 'material witness' to some unspecified crime.
That's it. Piss someone off in power and away you go, with no chance of regaining your freedom until those in power choose to let you go.
How anyone can see this as anything but a characteristic of a police state is beyond me. Guess your definition of 'freedom' allows you to overlook those kinds of abuses - so long as they don't happen to you, eh?
Max
Oh yea, the USA really sucks (Score:3, Interesting)
But on the issue of police states, to compare to France or Germany, which are quite liberal and free states:
In America, you can still be a Nazi. its tolorated here in th
Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks (Score:2, Interesting)
Only because it's true. [wired.com]
First of all, we do not put soldiers in our civilian population, we put them other people's civilian population.
Like the National Guardsmen who point assault rifles at innocent people who can't stand on one leg because they're recovering from an injury?
Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to.
The thing is that even if they don't rise up, you still don't have to.
Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks (Score:2)
I haven't been searched or gone through a metal detector in the last 10 US malls I have been to (or any mall for that matter). Maybe he was from Compton which is gang infested?
Ireland had some pretty heavily armed military types delivering money to the banks when I was there (can't remember if they were military or just special division of cops, all carried SMG, kind of scary). This was in rural northwest Ireland too (Ballina
Ah, But... (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws enacted, and in the process of being enacted since 9-11, have and are turning America toward police-statehood.
Detention without trial; without access to lawyers. Mass surveillance measures being created. The "Material Witness" laws being subverted...
And America is not alone, The UK is also undergoing it's own particular form of Big Brother transformation.
Just don't kid yourself it's not happening.
Little by little, it is.
One of the defining characteristics of a police state (though I'm no expert on the subject, by any means) to my mind, is the mass surveillance, monitoring, cataloging and tracking of the citizenry, for no real good reason.
The Stazi used this means extensively, and the emergence of it in the US, UK, and elsewhere, seems to indicate (to me at least) that the people in charge, are moist in their underwear at the thought of being able to know who you are, where you are, where you've been, where you're going, who you know, who you've associated with, who you've talked to, what you've read/listened to/viewed, who your relatives are, who you care about, what you care about, etc. (the etc. might be a little redundant at this point.)
I don't care what they need it for, whether to stop terrorists/crime/benefit fraud or whtever, on a personal level, that makes anyone who opposes me in any way, in any kind of dispute, whether because I'm fighting the building of houses on allotments, or the re-development of public land, or some bogus council activity, right up to fighting the government in court, a much greater threat than they have any right to be in a society that is not a police state.
That gives them the power to lean on me in ways that they could not, if they minded their own business, and got on with what they are supposed to be doing: representing my own and other common people's interests.
It gives them immense power over the populace that they are supposed to serve.
It isn't fully formed yet, but the Big brother Beast is growing in the womb; limbs and features, already visible.
Police State?
Maybe not today, but someday, soon, and perhaps for the rest of your life.
On a side note, two things: The US has banned the burning of crosses [in public at least] as constituting racial harassment (the term used was somewhat different, but I forget, just having heard it on the radio.) maybe the Nazi/Jew thing will be dealt with in the same manner, in the future.
And, Pharmboy, you said, "Perhaps if other countries would simply rise up and kill their own butcherous leaders, we wouldnt have to."
I know it's like shooting fish in a barrel, and a pretty easy riposte, but...
...maybe they wouldn't have to rise up, if the US (and other developed, Northern Bloc countries) didn't enable, arm and support their butcherous leaders in the bloody first place!
Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks (Score:2)
Since when did the illegality of something ever stop our government from doing it?
And don't think that this is shot at just the current administration. During Clinton's tenure, the FBI paid snipers to shoot and kill the wife and infant son of a suspect (ruby ridge).
I can understand how someone can love their country, but that doesn't mean we should trust our government.
Re:Oh yea, the USA really sucks (Score:2)
Proud to be American (Score:2)
<rant>
The US has contributed to attrocities throughout the world that make Saddam Hussein and his ilk seem like schoolyard bullies by comparison, from the oil-industry-sponsored genocide in East Timor and Nig
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2)
Re:well, I'm in the USA (Score:2)
Re:police states (both pleasant and not-so-pleasan (Score:2)
Singapore (Score:2)
Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Negative Utopia (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Negative Utopia (Score:4, Funny)
you mean: (Score:2)
Re:Negative Utopia (Score:3, Informative)
According to Wikipedia it was
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:5, Interesting)
I saw this in another thread last night. Someone posted it AC and I can't find a Google for it. It hits the nail right on the head though.
One constant throughout human history has been the struggle between the "haves" and the "have nots." For the purpose of this discussion, I will refer to the "haves" as "the elite" and will call the "have nots" "the rabble." I am doing this to emphasize the fact that the rabble, while comprising most of the population, is almost always pitifully weak and disorganized, thanks to constant manipulation by the elite. "Divide and conquer" has always been the name of the game here; it has always been easy for the elite to manipulate public opinion and keep the rabble squabbling among each other.
The elite, though comprising only 1% of the population (the exact percentages are arguable, though the figures I am using are in the right ballpark), control most of the wealth. (In modern America, one has to be worth at least $100 million to be a serious player.) The elite don't have to work per se; they spend their time making deals, which, although stressful at times, is much too stimulating to fall into the realm of institutionalized drudgery which people commonly refer to as "work."
Falling below the elite in status and power are what could be called "elite wannabes," "lackeys of the elite," or "wealthy rabble." These people are very wealthy by rabble standards.
Power and status are hardwired into human behavior. Before the rise of agriculture, when humans were nomadic hunter-gatherers, it was difficult to accumulate power and status, since possessions were limited by what people could carry with them. There were probably powerful lineages that got passed through the generations, but the gap between the powerful and everybody else was limited due to the nature of their lifestyle.
All this changed with the rise of agriculture approximately 10,000 years ago. For the first time, people became sedentary, and they produced surpluses of grain which had to be defended. These surpluses meant unprecedented power for whoever was able to control them, and the first elite was born. For the first time, organized war became possible.
Howard Zinn's "A Peoples' History of America" describes the real dynamics at work behind the American Revolution. Rather than some idealistic "liberty and justice for all," the American Revolution was actually fomented by the American elite, who chafed under the British royalty.
It has been pointed out that by fighting an enemy, one takes on many of the characteristics of that enemy. Interestingly, it was World War 2 when America became a fascist power. By fascism, I am referring to Mussolini's definition: "Fascism should more properly be called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power."
By 1945, state and corporate power in America had merged into what was later termed the "military-industrial complex," even though it wasn't until 1961 that Dwight Eisenhower gave his famous speech warning America about a system that had already been in place for 15 years.
Even though America had become fascist by 1945, there remained a vast amount of consolidation to do: there still remained the rabble and their pesky vote (an archaic carryover from the Revolutionary War era). The rabble had recently suffered two major traumas -- the Great Depression and World War Two, and had reached an unprecedented level of solidarity. The rabble had become dangerous, and it was necessary to manipulate them back into their customary position of helplessness, while at the same time enhancing the power of t
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:3, Interesting)
I was in total agreement until this. The federal government is *not* weakening by any means. Quite the contrary -- the federal government is growing in power and expense, and has been growing strong since the introduction of the federal income tax. It is ce
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:5, Insightful)
In general, I believe that it is a myth that we had some super-democratic past, and that American society is getting less and less democratic.
Take for example discrimmination at airports against arab-americans; or the background checks of immigrant arabs. Well, I am not saying it is right, but it is nothing compared to the treatment of ethnic Japanese during WW2. They were locked up for years even though they were US citizens.
I don't like everything in the Patriot act either but to say that it constitutes a strong trend towards an Orwellian 1984 is not very well grounded in history. Did you know, for example, that during Washington's presidency it was illegal to criticize the president in print? This is much worse than all these questionable patent and copyright laws.
Tor
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:4, Interesting)
As an aside, I think there is a pretty strong case that America is getting less and less democratic (not in the pure sense of the word, of course, but representatively democratic, as it was intended to be). It essentially has to do with the fact that the citizen/representative ratio has grown much larger than the founders could ever have expected. With so many constituents to such a small number of representatives, it shouldn't be any surprise that our views are represented much less democratically than in the past.
This is not at cross-points to your point, mind you--it's perfectly possible (and probably even natural) for a democratic decision to result in less freedom for a minority (or perceived minority). Those issues were really a failing of the judiciary, which is theoretically immune from democratic pressures, to check the democratically elected executive and legislative branches.
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:2)
I agree, but it's not about that, it's about "are we moving toward or away from "a democratic state" at any given time.
At the moment, it appears to be, "away from."
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Trends, Big Brother, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
Prior to the United States, a constitutional democracy did not exist since Athens.
In all honesty, the US is not a democracy, but a Republic loosely based on Roman governance and Athenian constitutional law. Pure democracy is nothing more than rule by majority which is always chaotic. In the United States of America, like in Athens, certain rights are guaranteed and cannot be depr
Frog boiling and stupidity. (Score:4, Insightful)
The stupidity comes in because even when you point it out, people say that it dosent affect me, or have been brainwashed enough so that they prefer the new way, same as how people follow religion, even though you can point out where its wrong..
Because Totalitarianism is Seductive (Score:3, Interesting)
Fictional Writer (Score:3, Insightful)
We are talking about a good science fictional game writer (that helped write a game about conspiracy theories, and a terrible future), writing about conspiracy theories and a terrible future.
I'm sure he has insight, but he also has an active imagination (not necessarily a bad thing, but, like I said, take it with a grain of salt).
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
Sensationalist journalism at it's finest points, authored by a sci-fi game writer.
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
Chinese government is not exactly The cooperating with the investigations. [time.com]
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:5, Insightful)
You are almost saying that because he writes fiction he can't think about the state of the world. That seems a very limited view. I mean, what special knowledge MUST one have to be able to criticize or comment on something? The author, it seems, has made a life studying technology, its ramifications, and plausible futures. So, when commenting on said technology, I would actually not take his comments "with a grain of salt" but rather as an educated opinion of the state of the world's technology.
I can't think of a better background for a person to have to comment on the things that he is commenting on.
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes, he does think about the state of the world, and he does have an educated view, but he ALSO has his own 'world' that he thinks the world is becoming. Does he have an overactive imagination? Have you played Deus Ex?
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
Remember that Ronald Regan was an entertainer. He was also a President of the Uni
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
Dude, you're trying to give this guy credibility by comparing him to Ronald Reagan?????
What is this?
The /. version of friendly fire??!!??
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
I'm sure he has insight, but he also has an active imagination (not necessarily a bad thing, but, like I said, take it with a grain of salt).
the same thing was said about Arthur C. Clarke about his wild ass ideas about putting devices in space to allow global communication.
those silly Sci-Fi writers.. they'll say a
Arthur C. Clarke quote (Score:2)
"There is a hopeful symbolism in the fact that flags do not wave in a vacuum."
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
Take the Bill Joy piece referenced in the write up, for example. While amusing, it was an unbelievably far-out vision of a near future full of hyped up sci-fi scenarios (robots come alive, nano-tech grey goo etc. etc.) that are rarely discussed in anywhere but in pulp fiction. Bill Joy is smart and rich, I grant him that (though he should go to hell for
Re:Fictional Writer (Score:2)
That is precisely the opposite of what world newspapers claim- Mbeki is often attacked because he denies that HIV causes AIDS [virusmyth.net], even though all modern doctors have believed this since the 1980s.
Dangerous Technology? (Score:5, Interesting)
Guns --designed to "kill"... When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home(if used properly; which for an 80 year old woman means shooting first fast and accurately)
Cloning-- can be abused to build "organ farms" and can also allow(someday) those who cannot have children "normally" and have the legitimate "selfish" desire to have a child of their own genetic makeup to do just that.
Surveilance Technology-- goes hand in hand with communication technology... allowing those being watched to organize to fight the abuses of that same tech.
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Umm since when did that become a legitimate desire? Every other human being is made with at most half your genetic make-up, and most that want perfect clones of themselves suffer from the delusion that their "children" will be exactly like them or a "better" version of them, or some "perfect
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Rubbish. That's like saying that a razor-sharp, foot-long knife is as likely to cut you as a swivel chair. Some tools are (suprise, suprise) remarkably apt to a single purpose.
When used correctly allow an 80 year old woman to be safe in her home
What you mean to say that her gun is by design inherently dangerous to would-be burglars.
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
bzzzt, thanks for playing, here are some lovely parting gifts...
'dangerous' from Webster's: Attended or beset with danger; full of risk; perilous; hazardous; unsafe.
One may adopt policies and follow procedures to minimize the inherent risk in handling, for instance, nitroglycerine, but ultimately the substance itself is unstable and there is the hazard of an explosion attendant upon all interactions with the stuff.
I think that
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Sure there is.
Airplanes, space shuttles, and race cars are examples of technology that are inherently dangerous even when used properly. Furthermore, even though steps can be taken to reduce the risk of operating these technologies, that risk can never be completely mitigated.
Moral: all blanket statements are false
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
I'm not going to dispute that guns have their uses; but to deny that they are inherently dangerous is to deny why they are useful. Sure, a squirt gun is useful as a toy, but this is not why guns are useful.
A non-dangerous gun is a contradiction in terms.
Some technology bears inherent dangers; what is important is b
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Once you put humans into the equation, they screw it all up.
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
And how has it been shown that it cannot work properly? I agree with you that it hasn't in the past (although Mainland China could be an argueable exception), but that doesn't prove a country will never make it work in the future.
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
Is Communism a technology?
And how has it been shown that it cannot work properly? I agree with you that it hasn't in the past (although Mainland China could be an argueable exception), but that doesn't prove a country will never make it work in the future.
Just like the fact that monkeys have never flown out of my ass doesn't prove that they never will?
Seriously, read Animal Farm by Orwell. Excellent explanation for why Communism will never work, at least until human nature changes completely.
Re:Dangerous Technology? (Score:2)
That's a remarkably dumb thing to say. There are substantial differences between selective breeding within species, and the mixing of genetic material from completely unrelated species. Don't believe it? Well, when you get a flounder to breed with a tomato, get back to us. Hey, we'll give you another 6000 years. Good luck!
So what (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:So what (Score:2)
Err... and what would be your definition of reckless usage?
Millions killed, wounded, poisoned, debilitated, oppressed?
Already happened m8.
Nuclear weapons turned on civillians? Happened.
Chemical weapons.... happened.
Does your definition of a mess up require that all mankind, save a few be-straggeled survivors perhaps, be wiped from the face of the earth???
SARS and Chinese timeliness (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think you can compare a nasty flu strain to Chernobyl. The hype is because everybody was waiting to find out it had something to do with Saddam and at this point it's obvious that it doesn't and that Bush's whole cabinet is full of paranoid maniacs who
Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness (Score:2)
Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness (Score:2)
Aye, they recover in a few weeks, with proper medical support. But what if the entire hospital is down with it? What if there *is* nobody to give you proper medical support?
It's the easy of contagion that's the problem with SARS; you've got to go pretty far out of your way to get AIDS, or even the flu, but SARS, well, be in the same room as somebody, you've got a problem.
Re:SARS and Chinese timeliness (Score:2)
welcome back to Nazi thinking (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:welcome back to Nazi thinking (Score:4, Insightful)
"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
-- Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
Why the hell is this moderated a troll? Get a clue, moderators. This quote is trying to make a point, and a damn good one.
While I am not about to jump on the "America is a police state!" bandwagon, it is unfortunately very true that someone who knows how to work the system, or has a great deal of charisma, or both, can often bring people of a country around to a way of thinking that, in the long run, can prove disastrous, especially in times of crisis, whether real or perceived.
This can be linked to the discussion at hand. One could, in a way, consider the current ease at which people can communicate with each other a "dangerous technology", in that someone able to mold human emotions and human will the way Hitler could would be able to reach millions of people very quickly and very easily.
At the same time, this goes both ways. The same technology has fostered a sense of openess that has lead to the formation of several subcultures that value openness to the point where the people that tend to become the de-facto leaders that people look up to tend to get there by passing a sort of unofficial peer review. So perhaps Goering's statement does not ring as true today as it once did, but to ignore that danger and become complacent is to fail to learn from history and thus be doomed to repeat it. This is why when the US Congress started passing legislation that infringed on American citizens' rights, I was very happy when not everyone simply accepted this as necessary and actually spoke out against it.
So someone mod the parent up a few points.
I was with him until I read... (Score:5, Funny)
Does anyone else see this as a VERY strange analogy to use in an otherwise technically-oriented article?
Re:I was with him until I read... (Score:2)
Plus, is it just me, or does it seem all the good pr0n is difficult to find?
Deus Ex ConEditor (Score:2)
Agh, yes... (Score:4, Insightful)
In a world where people left the task of judging others to actual judges, this might be workable. But we won't see such a world in our lifetimes, if ever. It's in the nature of humanity to judge, and that's why privacy is so important. Without it, there's nothing to society but the pressure to conform, pressing in relentlessly, until the very thing which makes us human -our existence as free-willed individuals- is rendered meaningless. Laws exist to keep governments from becoming tyrannical. Privacy exists to keep society from becoming tyrranical. And yet, these guys see no alternative to totalitarianism, one way or the other, if they even see that their proposition is still slavery, just to a different master.
Makes me sick. Perhaps we are doomed by our own technology; if so, then so be it. What good is life, if in order to save it we must give up everything that makes it worth living?
Misinformed submitter (Score:4, Funny)
This is probably redundant, but.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously. That game rocked, and I mean rocked to the next level. Even though I am spending countless hours playing and replaying Morrowind right now, I STILL go back sometimes and play Deus Ex through, just to enjoy the story line.
I hope Deus Ex 2 is just as good. If someone could do a Deus Ex mod for Morrowind I think they would attain sainthood.. *sigh* Ok enough ranting.. don't want the moderators to mod this down to the bottom of the ocean...
Re:This is probably redundant, but.... (Score:2)
Writer was 1/2 right. (Score:4, Interesting)
The Machine gun is a great example.
Many people may not be aware, but the Machine Gun has Saved more soldiers lives than it has taken. In fact many people believe that the Machine Gun has saved more soldier lives than penicillian.
Before the Machine Gun, 10 men could guard no more than 20 or so unarmed prisoners. Otherwise they rush you, take your weapon etc.
Yes, it allowed prisons and concentration camps to grow, but before it, GENERALS COULD NOT ACCEPT THE SURRENDER OF THE ENEMEY EXCEPT AT THE END OF THE WAR
You could not accept the surrender of one battalion, because you could not spare the men to guard them while your other forces went off to fight the next set of soldiers.
So if people surrendered and it was not the last enemey combatants, you killed them. So no one surrended.
The inventor of the Machine Gun did NOT realize he was allowing people to surrender, he thought he creating a horrendous killing machine.
similarly, the new technolgies we are creating WILL surprise us, and will create NEW social structures that we did not have before.
Society will evolve in a strange new manner, not the simple ideas propagated by these Science Fiction Authors mentioned by the writer.
Lifesavers, those machine guns! (Score:5, Informative)
The trench warfare of WWI came about in large part because of the tremendous defensive power of the machinegun. Maneuver warfare, which might have shortened the war considerably, was impossible because no matter how much you "softened up" the enemy with artillery, machineguns would still be there to mow you down. The conditions in the trenches contributed to the death of at least twice as many soldiers as did enemy bullets.
If you don't consider the Gatling Gun to be a "true machinegun", then the surrender of 12,000 Union troops at Harper's Ferry during the American Civil War seems to invalidate the claim that generals couldn't accept surrender.
If you do consider the Gatling Gun to be a machinegun, then you could just go back a bit further, to 1805, when Napoleon's Grande Armee captured 30,000 Prussian and Russian soldiers at Austerlitz. No machine guns, Gatling Guns, or anything even close at the scene of that surrender, yet somehow it happened.
I could go on and on with examples, but the point is that soldiers did surrender before the advent of the machine gun. The machine gun IS a killing device. It kills more efficiently than any other form of bullet-launcher.
I don't consider machine guns to be evil, because I was often damned happy to have two M60s at my disposal as a platoon leader. But let's not pretend that machineguns have saved more lives than "penicillian".
Stronger Responsibility/Power Correlation Needed (Score:4, Interesting)
If we're going to have any hope of surviving a future in which many citizens have the power to create dangerous virii or in any way cause widespread death and devastation, then we're going to have to do a helluva a lot better job than we are now of creating responsible citizens.
Rather than adopt the authoritarian solution of removing all power from as many people as possible and investing as much power as possible with a single "trusted" individual in the hopes of reducing the risks associated with an empowered citizenry, I'd much rather we at least implement better measures to given and take power from individuals based on their demonstrated level of responsibility. Not all or nothing, but a graded continuum. Some of that exists now: felons aren't supposed to get access to firearms in the U.S., for example.
However, there are far too many exceptions to an ideal:
- responsible people without power,
- irresponsible people with power.
Got a ways to go.Usually technology brings its own balance (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I can imagine, the same rationale applies to other areas of science. It's not the lone terrorist that should worry us, it's big organizations (like goverments) that have the means and the people to be at the cutting edge. I mean, really, when you compare in history the damage made by terrorism or small organizations with the damage made by goverments, you can easily detect a pattern.
seems to be more of a pandemic than epidemic (Score:2, Informative)
Limit of lethality to viruses (Score:4, Interesting)
It is not possible for a virus to kill more than a certain percentage of a population because at some point the population gets so sparse that the virus can no longer spread. When we consider modern methods of quarantine, disinfection, and treatment, I find the possibility of a highly lethal virus even less believable.
The reason why biological weapons are scary is because they can spread a virus much more efficiently than it can spread itself. But making biological weapons requires big machines which, as the author says, are "easily visible by satellite." So I don't think he has much of an arugment.
Re:Limit of lethality to viruses (Score:2)
No, it absolutely would not have evolved already. Yes, viruses have been evolving forever, but their goal is not to destroy humanity- it's to create more viruses. Exterminating humankind would get in the way.
Textbook: "Evolution by natural selection allows population pressure to gradually change an organism into something more likely to survive."
A virsus that kills 100% of i
How quickly we digress (Score:2, Interesting)
Motivation (Score:5, Insightful)
Stopping the access to the technology would require such things as destroying the internet and other worldwide mass-communications. Essentially, the technology won't go away. Police states are never 100% effective, which means that as soon as a technology like, say, bioweapons or antimatter ends up in the hands of average people, if someone has a motivation to use it, they will.
The only way to stop this threat is to stop the motivation. Secure people generally do not commit crimes. If you have nothing to fear (poverty, hate crimes, etc) then you will be less likely to do these things. As the ability of individuals to secure weapons of mass destruction increases, we have to start thinking about making our society more content.
The Information - Knowledge gap (Score:4, Interesting)
Of course this is not the case. How many people use Linux and know each and every last piece of code (and I'm not talking about
The problem is this: the more advanced a society becomes, the more specialized its population becomes. That means the slight fraction one has knowledge of shrinks as time progresses even though they might know more than people a hundred years ago.
So what has society done? Attempted to make any and all technology novice-usable. So I don't have to know how an ATM or automobile or cd players works to use it.
So let's take the author's example of the Ebola-AIDS virus. Assuming that the above traits hold (that we become more specialized while technology grows more advanced yet usable) then anybody might be able to unleash Ebola-AIDS while only a handful of people would have the slightest idea how to stop it.
Basically it's the Script-Kiddie Syndrome to the Nth degree. All I need is a Genome Rootkit and I can cause havoc. And who cares if I can't hack any and all persons? What if I just need to hit a 3rd world country that hasn't gotten the latest service pack? I could wipe out Zambia or Cambodia. We see this time and time again: the problem and the cure exist side by side. Yet for some reason the former gets out more than the latter. How often are sites hacked on year old exploits?
Of course this is all hypotheticals. But it seems that the failing is something intrinsically human, not political or technological. So neither a police state or open utopia would solve any of this. Besides, the author's example is a wacky level of technology. Who knows. We might all be Wesley Crushers by then.
Real problem, clueless article (Score:2)
The real problem is the development of technologies that allow a small number of people to kill a large number of people. There are a few such technologies now, all involving radioactives, chemicals, or biologicals. Computers aren't an issue. Biology might be, as techniques improve.
Any new technology that seems dangerous has to be compared aginst existing dangerous technologies. Cars, for example. Technologies with weapons implications have to be compared against what soldiers
Diversify (Score:3, Insightful)
For all the paranoia about stuff like SARS, I don't think Antarctic researchers or some guy who lives in a shack in Montana is going to catch it.
Flesh eating nanobots? You darn well know there's going to be plenty of pockets of people who will microwave to death, any nanobots that get within 50 meters of them. Maybe they're nuts for not trusting the tech, just as they still don't want flouridation in their water. But long after the nanobot plague has ravaged the rest of humanity, they will still be around and they'll grin toothlessly at the thought that some guy said they were doomed. Their precious bodily fluids will remain pure.
And it's not just a luddite thing. Even if the nanobots eat Joe Schmoe's flesh, they won't get Jane Schmoe, because her transhumanist polymer flesh isn't even compatable with the nanobots. Her defense isn't so much out of deliberate design, but just due to having different weaknesses.
A lot of people didn't catch ILOVEYOU because they weren't dumb enough to run a program that treats data as code. But a lot of people didn't catch Code Red, not because their web server was somehow immune to buffer overflows, but because their web server was just different.
Ebola schmebola. How are people going to catch Ebola from their cow-orkers if they never even meet except over a video-phone? How is my phone going to catch your phone virus if it exploits a mere implementation detail? You think we'll all have the same stuff or be in the same places or do the same things? "One world, one web, one program?" That'll be the day! We don't all want the same things! You might get a lot of us but you'll never get us all.
Diversify, spread out, and compartmentalize. Take that to the extreme, and you can even survive Death Stars.
Not to stray too far off topics... (Score:2)
If you want a REAL impending doom... (Score:4, Insightful)
Bill Joy gets to look smart and visionary talking about science fiction fantasies that we read and play, but the real dangers to humanity are the good ol ones that people have been harping about for years.
perl code of the future! (Score:2)
I can see it now...
$dbh = DBI->connect ("DBI:mysql:host=yourmom;database=yourparents)
my @baby = $sth->fetchrow_array ();
foreach $b
I'd be fine with just monitoring (Score:2)
I would LOVE of to have a system of cameras overlooking the freeways, so I could monitor how heavy the traffic is going towards the route I drive so that I could get a sense of when would be a good time to leave. I know some cities have some things like that that let you see traffic flow figures, but
SARS is not air-borne (Score:4, Informative)
There was an interview on the radio with Patient 3 on Friday. Her mother and father were the people who brought SARS to Toronto from Hong Kong. He parents flew back on the plane infected with SARS. All of the people on the flight have been now been cleared. There is SOME evidence that it can be transmitted aerially through droplets but it does not appear to be air borne.
Additionally, of the 80 or so likely cases and 100 more possible cases only 10 people have died and in 8 cases they were elderly and most of those cases there were other contributing factors. More people in Canada have died in the same period from complications from regular pnuemonia. Not to say that there is nothing to worry about, but the biggest danger of SARS is that it is infecting health care workers which is crippling the health care system. If SARS was a tenth as bad as the media is making it out to be, there would be thousands of cases, not less than 200.
Mind you, I was in China Town this weekend and when someone sneezed on the street people acted like a bomb went off.
Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
The answer, as always, is quickly derived from a google search:
In some ancient Greek drama, an apparently insoluble crisis was solved by the intervention of a god, often brought on stage by an elaborate piece of equipment. This "god from the machine" was literally a deus ex machina.
Few modern works feature deities suspended by wires from the ceiling, but the term deus ex machina is still used for cases where an author uses some improbable (and often clumsy) plot device to work his or her way out of a difficult situation. When the cavalry comes charging over the hill or when the impoverished hero is relieved by an unexpected inheritance, it's often called a deus ex machina.
Re:What does 'Deus Ex' mean? (Score:2)
-- Rich