Re: And What if Manhattan IS Nuked?

From: Robert J. Bradbury (bradbury@aeiveos.com)
Date: Tue Aug 20 2002 - 06:57:38 MDT


On Tue, 20 Aug 2002, Brian Atkins wrote:

> The planes were the technology. The point being that our society seems
> to have a rather dismal record when it comes to coming up with perfect
> (or even near-perfect) defenses to new technologies right from the get-go.

Not planes per se, but the evolution of planes. As I recall a bomber once
crashed into the Empire State Building with little negative effect. What
is interesting is that the WTC were built in 1970-72 and the 767 design
was started in 1978 and first flew in 1981 (less than a decade apart).
It seems clear that there was a lack of thought about building strength
relative to mobile energy capacity.

> Usually it seems to take a long evolutionary period of mistakes before
> we finally figure it out. This kind of evolutionary period however is
> unacceptable when it comes to existential risks.

Unless we constantly pay attention and are constantly evaluating the risks,
e.g. the relative energy content of a high speed plane loaded with fuel
compared with the fire resistance of our buildings, accidents will happen.

The trend with nanotech would be in the right direction -- planes
would get lighter and carry less fuel while buildings would get
stronger and be more fire tolerant (support beams built out of
sapphire rather than steel).

Robert



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:16 MST