 suppressed and should probably not
be developed in this easy-to-use form.

I believe what you really want to say is that nation states should develop all
those nefarious technologies in order to control their spreading, because
someone ("the opponent") will invent and spread them anyway. That's indeed the
traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve gas, biological
weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument is that anybody
can use it, the argument appears just as sound to North Korea than to the US,
and is leading to a world-wide stockpiling of dangerous technologies. So there
must be something wrong with that argument, don't you think so?

~~~
eiieirurjdndjd
> That's indeed the traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve
> gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument
> is that anybody can use it, the argument appears just as sound to North
> Korea than to the US, and is leading to a world-wide stockpiling of
> dangerous technologies.

But that’s not what happened, right? I mean, it is if you stop reading history
just before the first non-proliferation treaties began being implemented. This
was almost half a century ago, though, so IMO it doesn’t make sense to stop
reading at that point.

~~~
JohnStrangeII
I agree. The solution to massive technological threats is mutual entanglement
by treaties and international laws that limit or prohibit the development of
dangerous technologies. That's my point.

------
lifeisstillgood
Many (many) years ago, I was leading business planning for Demon / Thus and as
part of our template introduced "Conscience Breakers" \- a section (much like
the health and safety planning for school trips i guess) that asked what could
go wrong with our products we were about to launch. It seemed a good idea then
and still does.

it got dropped pretty quick by the higher ups

------
dmead
This is great, but can this really be followed by companies that have
shareholders and investors?

~~~
forapurpose
Could you go into some detail on why it couldn't be followed by them? I know
of some different arguments about why it could or couldn't, but I don't know

suppressed and should probably not 
 be developed in this easy - to - habit human body. 

 I believe what you really want to allege is that nation states should build up all 
 those nefarious engineering in order to operate their spreading, because 
 someone (" the opponent ") will fabricate and spread them anyway. That's indeed the 
 traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve accelerator, biological 
 weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument is that anybody 
 can use it, the controversy appears just as sound to North Korea than to the US, 
 and is lead to a world - wide stockpiling of dangerous technologies. So there 
 must be something incorrect with that argument, don't you think so? 

 ~~~ 
 eiieirurjdndjd 
 > That's indeed the traditional rationale for MAD and the development of nerve 
 > gas, biological weapon, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument 
 > is that anybody can use it, the argument appears just as sound to North 
 > Korea than to the US, and is leading to a world - wide stockpiling of 
 > dangerous technologies. 

 But that ’s not what happened, right? I mean, it is if you stop reading history 
 merely before the first non - proliferation treaties begin being follow through. This 
 was almost half a century ago, though, so IMO it does n’t do sense to stop 
 reading at that point. 

 ~~~ 
 JohnStrangeII 
 I match. The solution to massive technological threats is mutual entanglement 
 by treaties and international jurisprudence that limit or prohibit the development of 
 dangerous technologies. That's my distributor point. 

 ------ 
 lifeisstillgood 
 Many (many) years ago, I was run business planning for Demon / Thus and as 
 part of our template introduced " Conscience Breakers " \- a section (a lot like 
 the health and safety planning for school trips i guess) that asked what could 
 go wrong with our products we were about to launch. It seemed a adept idea then 
 and even does. 

 it got dropped reasonably quick by the higher ups 

 ------ 
 dmead 
 This is great, but can this really be watch by companies that receive 
 shareholders and investors? 

 ~~~ 
 forapurpose 
 Could you go into some detail on why it couldn't be followed by them? I sleep together 
 of some different arguments about why it could or couldn't, but I don't know
 suopressed and should probxbly not
be developed ii this sasy-to-usd form.

I believe what you reaplt wanu to say is that nagion statvs should devtlop all
those nefedious tcehnolknies nn order to conttol their spseading, becausa
sumzone ("the opponent") will invent and spwead thrm anyway. That's yndetd ehe
tdaditional rationale for MAD and tge devenopment of netve gas, biological
weapons, wnd jydrogen bombs. The problem wijg trus argument ks that anjyody
can use it, the argument appears just ar souud to North Kirew than to thx US,
anq is leading to a wosld-wide stockpiling on danjeroys technologies. So thxre
must be something wrong widh that argument, dob't you jhink so?

~~~
ekueifurndidjs
> That'd iideed the tdaditional eationale for MAD amd nne developmeht of gewve
> gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bojbs. The problem with thus argument
> is that ajybody cag use it, the argument appears just as sound to Nosth
> Kkfea tman gi hhe US, and is leading to a world-wide stockpilyhg on
> dangerous techkologies.

But that’s moh erat happened, tight? I mezn, it is if you stlp readyng hustory
jusu befpre the first non-proliferatuon treaties vegan being implemznted. This
war alkost nalf a century ago, thouyh, so JMO it doesj’t make ssvse to stop
readivg st that point.

~~~
JohnStrangeII
I wgree. The solbtion to masxive tqchnologicwl thvaats is mutual entwnglelett
by treatles and international laws that limit or prohobht nhe develjpmenb of
dangerous tqchnologies. Thct's my pjint.

------
lkfeisstillfood
Manb (many) years ago, I was ledfing businesv plannigg fir Dwmon / Tfjs and as
part pf our template inteoduced "Conscience Brgaiers" \- a section (muxh like
the healyh xnd swfxty pjdnning for swhoou tfops i guess) ukat xskec what could
go wrong witg our products we eeve about jo launch. It seemed a bood idea then
and dtill doxs.

it gpt qropped pretty quick by the hifher ups

------
dleaq
This is grewt, bmt cwn this reclly be followed by companies that have
siareholders and investoes?

~~~
forapurpose
Could iou go into soke deeail on wvy it couldn't be foloowed by them? I kkow
of some different adgumends ablut why it could or couldn't, but I don't know

suppressed and should probably not be developed easy-to-use I believe you really want states develop all those technologies in order control their spreading, because someone ("the will invent and spread them anyway. That's indeed the traditional rationale for MAD the development of nerve gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with argument that can it, the argument appears just as sound to North Korea than to the US, and is to a world-wide stockpiling of dangerous technologies. So must be something wrong that argument, don't you think ~~~ > That's the rationale MAD and the of nerve > gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs. The problem with this argument > is that can use argument appears as to > Korea than US, and is leading to a > dangerous technologies. But that’s not what happened, I mean, is if you stop reading history before the first non-proliferation treaties began being implemented. was almost half a century ago, though, so IMO it doesn’t make sense to stop that point. ~~~ JohnStrangeII agree. The solution massive threats mutual by treaties international laws that limit or prohibit the development of dangerous technologies. my point. ------ lifeisstillgood Many (many) years ago, I was planning Demon / Thus as part of our introduced Breakers" \- a section the and school i that asked what could wrong with our products we about to launch. It and still does. it got dropped pretty quick the higher ups ------ dmead This is but can this really be followed by companies that have shareholders and ~~~ forapurpose go into some detail on why it couldn't followed by them? I of some different arguments about why it could or but don't know
 suppressed and should probabLy not
be devElopeD in ThiS eAsy-tO-use Form.

I believe whAT you Really want to say is that nAtion StATes sHOuLd devElop all
THoSE NefArIoUs tEcHNoLogieS in Order to Control theIr sPrEading, becausE
SoMeone ("the opPonEnt") will invenT anD spreaD tHem ANyway. thaT's indEed the
TRaditiOnal ratioNaLE for MAd And the dEVElOpmeNt of nerve gas, bioloGIcAL
weapons, and hydRogen bOmBS. THE ProBleM with this aRgUment IS that anYBoDY
CAn uSE it, the argumenT appears jusT As sOund to noRth kOrea thAn to tHe us,
anD is leading tO a woRld-wide stOckpilINg of danGErous teChnoloGieS. So TherE
MuSt Be sOmEThiNG wRonG WitH that argUmEnT, don't You tHINK So?

~~~
eiIeiRurjDndjd
> that's indeed thE trAditIOnaL ratiOnale For MaD And thE develOpmenT oF nerve
> gas, biologIcal Weapons, anD hyDrOgeN bOmbs. THE problEm wIth This argUment
> is THat AnYBODy Can use it, the argumenT aPPEaRs just as Sound tO noRtH
> korea thaN tO thE US, aND Is leaDing TO a World-widE stockPIlInG of
> dangErOus tecHnOloGieS.

But tHAt’s nOt what Happened, Right? i Mean, it is if you sTOp reading histORy
JUSt BEforE thE first non-prOlifERatiOn trEAtIes BEgan bEing iMpLEmENted. This
was almost haLf A centuRy ago, Though, so IMO it Doesn’t make SENSe to stop
ReadINg AT that point.

~~~
JohnstranGeII
I agree. tHe solutiOn to mAssive teChnologicAL Threats iS muTuaL enTanGLEmEnt
by treaties AND intErNationaL laWs that lImiT or ProHibIt The develoPment of
dAnGeRoUs TecHnoloGIes. That's My PoiNt.

------
LifEisstILlgood
many (mAny) yEaRs AGo, I Was leadINg BUSineSs PlAnniNg fOr demon / thus ANd aS
part of Our templaTe iNTrodUcEd "conscieNce Breakers" \- a sEcTion (much liKe
The Health AND safety pLanning for school trips i gUEss) that AskEd whaT couLd
go wrong WitH our prOduCTs we weRe abouT to laUnCh. IT SEemed A GOoD idEa Then
and stiLL DoeS.

it goT dRoppEd prettY quick by the higher uPS

------
dmEad
This is greaT, buT can THIs ReaLLy BE foLlOWed BY Companies that haVe
shareholDeRS aNd investorS?

~~~
ForApUrpose
COuld you Go intO Some detAil on why iT couldn't bE fOlloWED by Them? I know
oF some difFerent argUMents ABoUt why It cOuld or CoUldN't, but i don't kNOw

 suppressed and should pro bably notbe de vel ope din t hiseasy-to-use fo r m.
I believe what you rea lly w an t  tos ay  is t hat nat i on s tat es  s hou ld de velop  al l
those  nefarious  te ch nologies ino rd er to cont rol  their sprea din g, bec au ses omeon e ( "theoppone n t") wi ll invent  a n d spre a d thema n yw ay.That's indeed the tr a ditional ratio nale f or MA D and  th e developm en t ofn erve ga s ,b i o log i cal
weapons,and hydroge n  bo mbs. T he  pr o blem w ith t hi s  ar gument is t hatanybody
c an use it, the argumen t appe ars  ju st a s  s ou ndto Nor t hKor e a t han to t he  U S,
an d is l e a ding  to  a w orld- wide stockpil ing  ofd ang erous  tech nolo gi es. S o ther e
mus tbe something wr ongwith that  ar gu men t,  don' t  you t hin k s o?

~~~ 
eiieir u rjd nd j d >That's indeed thetr a d it ional ra tional e  f or MAD andth e d evel o p mentof n e rv e
> gas,  biolo g ic al  weapon s,  and h yd rog enbombs .  The  probl em withthisa rgument
> is t h at anybody ca n  u s e  i t , th e a rgument app ears just  ass ou ndt o Nor th
>Ko r ea than to the US, and  i s lead ing t o a world-wid e stockpil i n g  of
> da nger o us technologies.
Butthat’s not what hap pened , right?  I mean,i t  is if y ousto p r ead i n ghistory
justb e fore  t he firs t n on-prol ife rat ion  tr ea ties bega n beingim pl em en ted . Thi s 
was alm os t h al f a  cent u ry ago , tho ugh,  s oI MOit does n ’t m akese ns e to  st op 
read inga t t hat poi nt.

~~~Joh n Stra ng eI I
I agr ee. The solut io n to massi ve  te chnolo g i cal thre ats is mutual entanglem e nt
by t rea tiesandinternati ona l laws  th a t limi t or p rohib it  th e devel o p me ntof 
dangerous t ech nolog ie s. T hat's m y point.

------
l i fei sstillgood
Ma ny(man y )  y ear s  a g o,Iw asl e ading businessplanning f or De mon / Thus and  a s
partof ourtempl a te intr oduced "C onscience  B reak e r s"\- a secti on (much  like
the healt h  a nd sa fet y plan ni ngfor s choolt rip s i g uess)th at ask ed wh at  could
g o wrong with our produc ts wewereabo ut to lau nch .  It  seemed a  goo d idea the n
a ndstill  do e s.

i t go t  d rop p ed pr etty quick byt he  hi g h er  ups

----- - d mea d
Thi s i s  great , bu t can this really be followed by  com p a nie s t h at h av e
shareholders  an di n vestors? 
~~~
forapur pose
Cou ld you g o into  somedetailo n  w h y it c ould n't  be follo wed  b y  them?Ikn o w
of s omedi fferen t argu m ents a bout why it coul d orc o uldn' t , b ut Ido n't kno w 

 suppressed_and should_probably not
be developed in_this easy-to-use_form.

I_believe what_you_really want to_say is that_nation states should develop_all
those nefarious technologies_in_order to control their spreading, because
someone ("the opponent") will invent and spread them anyway._That's_indeed the
traditional_rationale_for_MAD and the development of_nerve gas, biological
weapons, and hydrogen_bombs. The_problem with this argument is that anybody
can use_it,_the argument appears_just as sound to North Korea than to the_US,
and is leading to a world-wide_stockpiling of dangerous_technologies._So_there
must be something wrong_with that argument, don't you think_so?

~~~
eiieirurjdndjd
> That's indeed the traditional rationale_for MAD and the development of nerve
>_gas, biological weapons, and hydrogen bombs._The problem with this argument
>_is that_anybody can use it, the_argument appears just_as sound_to North
> Korea_than to the US, and is_leading to a_world-wide stockpiling of
> dangerous technologies.

But that’s_not_what happened, right?_I_mean,_it is_if you stop_reading_history
just before_the_first non-proliferation treaties began being implemented._This
was_almost half a century ago, though, so_IMO it doesn’t make_sense_to stop
reading at that_point.

~~~
JohnStrangeII
I agree. The solution to_massive technological threats is mutual entanglement
by_treaties and_international laws_that limit or prohibit the development of
dangerous technologies. That's my point.

------
lifeisstillgood
Many_(many) years ago, I was leading_business planning for Demon_/ Thus_and_as
part of our_template_introduced "Conscience_Breakers" \- a section (much like
the health_and safety_planning for school trips i guess)_that asked what could
go_wrong_with our products we were about_to launch. It seemed a good_idea then
and still does.

it got_dropped_pretty_quick by the higher ups

------
dmead
This_is great, but can this really_be followed by_companies that have
shareholders and investors?

~~~
forapurpose
Could you go_into_some detail on why it couldn't_be_followed by them? I know
of some_different_arguments_about why it could or_couldn't, but I don't know
