From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 16:33:40 MST
In responding to John B, I wrote:
> In the long run one wants to promote scenarios
> that would produce increased trust and cooperation.
>
> > What about cautious pessimism, that keeps you from
> > destroying a top-rate mind with a poorly understood
> > experiment?
>
> One has to balance the risks of destruction with the
> risks of containment. People do escape from prisons.
> I'd view cryonics as a reasonable alternative.
> It removes people from being a threat to society
> while postponing problem of dealing with malformed
> genetic codes or brain structures until we have the
> technology to deal with them.
My comment probably didn't make any sense to most people.
(Thats what happens when you spend the day reading a
couple of hundred PubMed abstracts...).
I was thinking along the lines of "experimenting" to
correct the genetic/mental defects of "sociopaths".
In which case it would likely be preferable to postpone
correcting such conditions (via experiments) until they
were "well understood". I'll admit that this may be
difficult given the complexity of the human brain.
There is nothing wrong with "cautious pessimism" but you
have to avoid this sliding into the "precautionary principle"
(where you never do anything until you are 100% sure it is safe).
Different humans have different tolerance for risk. I would
hate to see us sliding into one degree of risk fits all
society. I expect, like seatbelts and motorcycle helmets,
that experimental risks should evolve into an enclave
situation. In some enclaves you will not be able to
give informed consent with regard to some experiments
without having an MD and a PhD in molecular biology.
Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:02 MST