[extropy-chat] Re: Jamais Cascio's Critique [Was RE: Recipe for Destruction - Joy/Kurzweil NYTimes Op-Ed]

Eliezer S. Yudkowsky sentience at pobox.com
Wed Oct 19 16:58:05 UTC 2005


Tyler Emerson wrote:
> Jamais Cascio of WorldChanging.com has written one of the better online
> critiques of "Recipe for Destruction" seen to date:
> 
> http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003648.html 

Okay, I'm persuaded.  I had no idea that the published gene sequences 
were that useful - I thought it was just sheer principle on the 
journal's part.  (The researchers, according to Kurzweil and Joy, did 
not want to publish the gene sequence to open-access databases, but were 
forced by the journal to do so on pain of their paper being refused 
publication - not that I regard this as a very impressive threat, but 
maybe things are different in academia.)  And there are other deadly 
gene sequences out there already, such as, if I recall correctly, 
smallpox; so publication of H1N1 would only pose a small incremental risk.

I am not comfortable with the overall situation.  Perhaps someone should 
monitor the protein synthesis / peptide sequencing machines that could 
actually reconstruct the flu, in addition to a Manhattan Project for 
technologies that promise rapid cures for new viruses, Kurzweil's bet 
being on RNA interference (and it seems like a good one).

Actually, brief Googling says that smallpox is a huge virus, not readily 
subject to artificial synthesis (like the short virus polio, which was 
artificially synthesized by one group of highly trained researchers), 
and I'm not sure if other short viruses such as Ebola are publicly 
sequenced.  The argument that we have existing immunity to H1N1 strikes 
me as weak, but I am not an immunologist.  Taking this into account, I'm 
tentatively persuaded to Cascio's point, but I'm not very persuaded.

I reiterate that the end of scientific openness is not the end of the 
world.  I used to think that way, until I read Rhodes's "The Making of 
the Atomic Bomb" and Lanouette's "Genius in the Shadows", and learned 
that this had happened before, and that scientific secrecy had been 
successfully argued and successfully implemented in an iffy-seeming 
early case, and that the results were, if not utopian, then probably 
better than unrestricted openness would have led to.

-- 
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky                          http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list