Science doomsday scenerio:

With technology becoming

1. Exponentially more powerful
2. Exponentially cheaper to produce
3. Exponentially more widely available and attainable

It is inevitable that at some point it will be possible for anyone to construct a weapon of mass destruction in the privacy of their own homes and use it to set off a chain reaction which will start world war 3.

Comments?

Quote:Comments?

Exponentially. Privacy. That is all, for now.

(October 29, 2011 at 3:01 am)Shell B Wrote:

Quote:Comments?

Exponentially. Privacy. That is all, for now.

Doh

NOT IF GOD DESTROY'S IT FIRST!!!!

(October 29, 2011 at 3:00 am)lucent Wrote: Science doomsday scenerio:

With technology becoming

1. Expodentially more powerful
2. Expodentially cheaper to produce
3. Expodentially more widely available and attainable

It is inevitable that at some point it will be possible for anyone to construct a weapon of mass destruction in the privary of their own homes and use it to set off a chain reaction which will start world war 3.

Comments?

Okay, now that I am done elsewhere, I can actually reply here.

What you are discussing is technology, which is a type of science, but so is just about everything else. Some even consider cooking a type of science.

Now, the precise scenario you present involves weapons technology. At this point, the only weapons of mass destruction that are actually termed such are different types of bombs. Some pretty big bombs can already be built in homes. Nuclear bombs are quite difficult for several reasons. You cannot accumulate the materials needed to make nukes under the radar.

Now, let's say tech does progress to the point where someone can create a weapon of mass destruction, per the commonly accepted definition. They would also need to be able to launch this weapon to start the "chain reaction" you speak of. Alternatively, they would need an elaborate plan to make it appear that the weapon was not made by a domestic terrorist. In other words, the person would have to want to start a chain reaction. Otherwise, it would just cause "Holy shit! What the fuck?" reactions. That is not to say that it will never be possible, but that very few people actually want to destroy the planet. Most simply want to destroy some of it and rule the rest. Most of those who would go to the trouble of building WMDs, that is.

Forgetting all of that, it is my belief that people can already unleash weapons of mass destruction. A cache with enough rifles and ammo to take out a city is a WMD to me. We can do that already. Why doesn't it happen? Well, very, very few people are sociopaths. For "science" to destroy the planet, we have to have at least one highly intelligent human being who doesn't want the planet to harbor human life anymore, including his or herself. I doubt you will find many of those, at least, many that go undetected. People like that tend to be vocal or obvious in some way.

It is far more likely that something like overpopulation will become an issue. In that case, we can say Christianity destroyed the planet. With abortion laws getting more and more ridiculous and more Christians going apeshit Bachmann nuts, we are headed toward a catastrophe of Easter Island type proportions. That is all.

(October 29, 2011 at 3:00 am)lucent Wrote: Science doomsday scenerio:

With technology becoming

1. Exponentially more powerful
2. Exponentially cheaper to produce
3. Exponentially more widely available and attainable

It is inevitable that at some point it will be possible for anyone to construct a weapon of mass destruction in the privacy of their own homes and use it to set off a chain reaction which will start world war 3.

Comments?

People like you would bring about new "dark age", if given the chance.

Also "scenerio" should be actually spelled scenario.

I always miss something. Keep it up and I will start spell checking posts twice and become decrepit and homeless. *logs off before this can start a chain reaction*

(October 29, 2011 at 3:18 am)Shell B Wrote:

(October 29, 2011 at 3:00 am)lucent Wrote: Science doomsday scenerio:

With technology becoming

1. Expodentially more powerful
2. Expodentially cheaper to produce
3. Expodentially more widely available and attainable

It is inevitable that at some point it will be possible for anyone to construct a weapon of mass destruction in the privary of their own homes and use it to set off a chain reaction which will start world war 3.

Comments?

Okay, now that I am done elsewhere, I can actually reply here.

What you are discussing is technology, which is a type of science, but so is just about everything else. Some even consider cooking a type of science.

Now, the precise scenario you present involves weapons technology. At this point, the only weapons of mass destruction that are actually termed such are different types of bombs. Some pretty big bombs can already be built in homes. Nuclear bombs are quite difficult for several reasons. You cannot accumulate the materials needed to make nukes under the radar.

Now, let's say tech does progress to the point where someone can create a weapon of mass destruction, per the commonly accepted definition. They would also need to be able to launch this weapon to start the "chain reaction" you speak of. Alternatively, they would need an elaborate plan to make it appear that the weapon was not made by a domestic terrorist. In other words, the person would have to want to start a chain reaction. Otherwise, it would just cause "Holy shit! What the fuck?" reactions. That is not to say that it will never be possible, but that very few people actually want to destroy the planet. Most simply want to destroy some of it and rule the rest. Most of those who would go to the trouble of building WMDs, that is.

Forgetting all of that, it is my belief that people can already unleash weapons of mass destruction. A cache with enough rifles and ammo to take out a city is a WMD to me. We can do that already. Why doesn't it happen? Well, very, very few people are sociopaths. For "science" to destroy the planet, we have to have at least one highly intelligent human being who doesn't want the planet to harbor human life anymore, including his or herself. I doubt you will find many of those, at least, many that go undetected. People like that tend to be vocal or obvious in some way.

It is far more likely that something like overpopulation will become an issue. In that case, we can say Christianity destroyed the planet. With abortion laws getting more and more ridiculous and more Christians going apeshit Bachmann nuts, we are headed toward a catastrophe of Easter Island type proportions. That is all.

I think the number of people who want to destroy the planet is growing every day. You find quite a bit of them on the internet. There are more than enough crazies out there for something like this to be feasible. If you were halfway intelligent you could probably set off a regional skirmish which led to global war with a suitcase nuke and a youtube video.

Yes, nuclear materials are hard to come by, but apparently people find ways to construct a reactor in their kitchen:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...-reactor/1

The point is, it could be something very simple. A new invention could create weapons we've never dreamed about. It's inevitable given the march of technology that the destructive capability available to individuals will at some point match the capability available to nations today. There is no "should we do this" in science, it is only "can we do this". Did you know that when they first tested the nuclear bomb they were not absolutely sure whether it would burn off the atmosphere or not? They did it anyway, of course.

So, your argument about how certain factors might cause it to play out in certain ways isn't really relevant. Sooner or later that kind of destructive power will be available to everyone, including the crazies who want to destroy the planet. Mutually assured destruction cannot be counted on to save us, so how can humanity deal with this issue?

---

(October 29, 2011 at 3:18 am)Justtristo Wrote: People like you would bring about new "dark age", if given the chance.

Also "scenerio" should be actually spelled scenario.

Did you want to engage the topic or?

(October 29, 2011 at 3:38 am)lucent Wrote: I think the number of people who want to destroy the planet is growing every day. You find quite a bit of them on the internet.

The internet is full of people being sarcastic and trolling. It is hardly an accurate gauge of the level of "crazy" in this world, though it is a fairly good indicator that people are strange.

Quote:There are more than enough crazies out there for something like this to be feasible.

Ah, but that is opinion. We have had men and women who were nuts enough to try to off large amounts of people, some of whom succeeded. Not a single one of those people was actually aiming to destroy the world, that I know of.

Quote:If you were halfway intelligent you could probably set off a regional skirmish which led to global war with a suitcase nuke and a youtube video.

Anything can set off a regional skirmish. However, regional skirmishes are rarely global. When they are, militaries are on alert for WMDs. While the potential for WWIII is absolute, the likelihood of it happening because of science is slim to none, in my opinion. It is people you should be worried about. They managed to kill shitloads of them with science back in the day too. Back then, weapons science was torture devices.

Quote:Yes, nuclear materials are hard to come by, but apparently people find ways to construct a reactor in their kitchen:

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/...-reactor/1

Stable enough to launch at another country? A reactor is not a nuke, by they way.

Quote:The point is, it could be something very simple. A new invention could create weapons we've never dreamed about. It's inevitable given the march of technology that the destructive capability available to individuals will at some point match the capability available to nations today. There is no "should we do this" in science, it is only "can we do this". Did you know that when they first tested the nuclear bomb they were not absolutely sure whether it would burn off the atmosphere or not? They did it anyway, of course.

Oh, please. This is turning into a science is evil discussion. Here I was thinking we were just discussing a hypothetical and you launch into talking about science as if it were independently intelligent. Science needs people to do things. Not all people do not think about what technology will do when they develop it. Also, the development of the nuclear bomb was an arms race in one of the most important wars in history. The people who developed it had reason to believe that it didn't matter if it backfired, because another country was doing the same thing at the same time.

Quote:So, your argument about how certain factors might cause it to play out in certain ways isn't really relevant.

You did not demonstrate that. Your precise scenario involved a weapon built in someone's home and used to set off a chain reaction. When that happens, we call it domestic terrorism and it does not cause a chain reaction. Unless the person makes it look like a military move on another country or from another country, your chain reaction is not going to happen.

Quote:Sooner or later that kind of destructive power will be available to everyone, including the crazies who want to destroy the planet. Mutually assured destruction cannot be counted on to save us, so how can humanity deal with this issue?

Abortion.

Quote:Science will surely destroy the planet

Science is more likely to help the planet (even if very little), not destroy it.

But inevitably, of course, the planet will be destroyed one day regardless of our advancement in science and technology. And this can happen in many different ways.