Posted by
James Steiner on
Jan 02, 2009; 4:52pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/Re-What-to-do-with-knowledge-tp2101042p2102312.html
I recall an amusing short-short story on that theme. It goes something
like this:
A scientist or government official or something tells his wife that a
terrible discovery that had been made--a discovery of some unique and
unlikely combination of readily available ingredients that could be
used to destroy the world. In response to her questions, he assures
her that the world is safe: Only a handful of people--those he
directly works with, his co-workers and friends at the lab, who come
over once a week with their spouses to play cards in their
basement--even know that such a thing is possible, never mind fully
knowing the actual ingredients, proportions and processes. Further,
all research records leading to the discovery have been destroyed, and
he and his colleagues are determined that the knowledge never be
exposed.No, he assures her, the world is safe.
At the next weekly card game hosted at their house, being convinced
that this knowledge is far too dangerous to exist, she poisons the lot
of them, thus protecting the world from harm.
~~James
On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 1:35 AM, Russ Abbott <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> The issue of what to do with knowledge is certainly not an easy one to
> resolve.
>
> Let's assume that you discovered that human beings were built in such a way
> that a certain kind of virus would wipe most of us out. Let's also assume
> that you were the only one who knew that. What would you do?
>
> Would you attempt to destroy that knowledge knowing how potentially deadly
> it is? If you did that, how would feel if a nihilistically inclined
> sociopath discovered the same thing a year later and set off the deadly
> viral chain reaction? Perhaps if you had informed someone and started to
> work on a defense, we would not have been so vulnerable to what turned out
> to be a surprise attack.
>
> On the other hand, if you had informed people, perhaps the word would have
> gotten out and triggered a biological arms race.
>
> I'm not claiming there are easy answers to these questions. But I do think
> it's important not to deny the nature of the universe. The premise of my
> thought experiment was that we were built with a certain kind of
> vulnerability. Not knowing about it is not necessarily the best way to
> proceed. But knowing about it may be dangerous as well. Sometimes there are
> no good options. But it is not an option simply to wish that the world were
> different. (Of course it is an option, but it doesn't make the world
> different.)
>
> The same probably holds for nuclear weapons. Whether or not "science"
> discovered that matter could be converted into energy in what could be very
> destructive ways, the fact is that matter can be converted into energy in
> very destructive ways. It does no good to wish that this weren't the case
> or that no one would every find out about it. That's an act of denial about
> how the world is. And denial is not a good way to live.
>
> -- Russ
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Ann Racuya-Robbins <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> --
>> Ann Racuya-Robbins
>> Founder and CEO World Knowledge Bank www.wkbank.com
>>
>> "The theory of general relativity is a theory about the structure of
>> nature. It is not noble. It is not evil. It is a theory." Russ Abbott
>>
>> We cannot separate everything into clear categories and thus avoid the
>> tragic consequences....Theories come about because people create
>> them...their(people's) agency cannot be removed nor in the theories'
>> consequnces.
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at
http://www.friam.org