[extropy-chat] Hazard a guess?

[Mark Walker]

Dan Clemmensen wrote:



> This is a common misconception. Unfortunately, it fails to account for
> emerging technologies that can be applied to building nuclear weapons.
> Example: There are new ways to create lasers that are tuned to extremely
> precise
> frequencies (google femtosecond comb) and ways to amplify such lasers to
> moderate
> power (google EDFA.) A sufficiently precise laser will ionize one
> isotope preferentially,
> and ionized molecules are trivially easy to separate from un-ionized
> molecules. None of this
> has the "big industrial footprint" of centrifuges or a diffusion plant.
>

The laser stuff is interesting, and I agree that it underscores the point
that we cannot be confident that we can monitor (emerging) technologies by
the size of their industrial footprint. As an analogy, I suggest that trying
to monitor genetic engineering of humans is more like trying to detect
someone creating a computer virus than it is to trying to monitor
traditional nuclear facilities. So like the virus writer, how easy would it
be to genetically engineer a human zygote _today_ a go undetected. As I
said, I think this might be quite easy, but how easy?

Cheers,

Mark

Dr. Mark Walker
Department of Philosophy
University Hall 310
McMaster University
1280 Main Street West
Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1
Canada