There’s a popular novel on much the same scenario, but in this
case it’s about a poem that is fatal if distributed… “Lullaby” by Chuck
Palahniuk My son devoured it of course…
Phil Henshaw
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Russ
Abbott
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:36 AM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] What to do with knowledge
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
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |