In the Future...
L
onge
C
ity
Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Posted 12 November 2003 - 05:02 AM
Posted 12 November 2003 - 07:42 AM
Posted 12 November 2003 - 10:24 AM
Posted 24 November 2003 - 06:00 AM
I take it you have something against Governments, firstimmortal?
Posted 25 November 2003 - 03:35 AM
Posted 25 November 2003 - 03:38 AM
Posted 25 November 2003 - 03:43 AM
Posted 25 November 2003 - 05:14 AM
Posted 25 November 2003 - 05:15 AM
Posted 25 November 2003 - 05:23 AM
Posted 26 November 2003 - 05:09 AM
Well, there is a certain amount of truth to it. Government is a threat to one's existence, seeing as they currently wield the power of life and death over their 'citizens. One would hope that the acceptance of such powers decreases either through de-emphasis of governmental powers, or legislation.
.
Posted 28 November 2003 - 04:48 PM
The implications for U.S. communications policy are no less far-reaching. During the 20th century, federal and state regulators strictly controlled everything from pricing to reliability in the U.S. telecom industry. In much of the rest of the world, phone service was a government-run monopoly, like the post office or national defense. Now, the transition to wireless means that governments everywhere risk losing their tight grip. "Wireless is shaking up the system. You are moving from universal service and monopoly to [a system] where service is a private contract between the company and the customer, and there are no guarantees," says analyst Rudy Baca of Legg Mason. Congress held a hearing on Sept. 24 to review the public-policy challenges. Regulators in California, Utah, and Virginia are concerned enough that they're considering trying to step up their own regulation of wireless phone prices and service by the end of this year.
While the wireless future is fraught with risks for many, customers are seeing huge benefits. All the competition means choices aplenty, tumbling prices, and innovation on the rise. And as cell phones become more sophisticated, consumers are ending up with what is essentially a small computer in their pocket, opening up all sorts of new possibilities for services and entertainment.
Posted 28 November 2003 - 07:07 PM
I agree with you there. Libertarian spinners assume that bigger problems such as space colonization will take care of themselves with “long-term” (five years) investment strategies and capitalization.thefirstimmortal: Some, no doubt, will insist that government should step in immediately to regulate an area with such far-reaching social consequences as immortality. Others will take the position that people are perfectly capable of organizing their own affairs without any help from the authorities, elected or otherwise. This debate is as old as human history, and it won’t be resolved here.
I wonder what kind of diluted services these will be? Basic needs have already been mastered except for violence- and deception-free serenity, cosmetics, and mortality. After all this we will still require “entertainment” (empty capital for an empty supply eventually translating into material waste) to fill our voids?Business Week: …opening up all sorts of new possibilities for services and entertainment.
Posted 29 November 2003 - 12:08 AM
Jace: Corporations tend to complain about certain regulations that impede their progress yet want regulations to impede the progress of other corporations. Go figure.
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:05 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:46 AM
Why the heck does the government need to regulate and monopolize wireless communication networks? To ensure quality service? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. What a joke. Besides, the free market has already accomplished that.
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:50 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:56 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 02:58 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:03 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:05 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:06 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:09 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:35 AM
Posted 29 November 2003 - 03:52 AM
Bill, I do not really believe you are as reckless as you appear.
Posted 29 November 2003 - 05:49 PM
Posted 02 December 2003 - 01:44 PM
Posted 02 December 2003 - 03:28 PM
Jace: Mind, from this couldn’t we extrapolate that since we don’t have a neutral economic ground from which to start, doing away with the quantity of politicians would only exacerbate tension on domestic soil? We can’t get rid of them all for obvious reasons, and fewer would make it much easier for them to become corrupted. Would you have the same trust in people in general if there were many more miniature sovereign-states doing their own thing?
Posted 29 February 2004 - 05:23 PM
Posted 01 April 2004 - 11:10 PM
So, with a new federal regulatory agency on the case, are we safe from bioterror now? In reality, this new biosecurity agency will only be regulating respectable researchers at universities and corporations in this country, who are not likely to be the guys cooking up some super-infectious version of smallpox to spread through the New York City subway system. Thus, this new federal effort may well be irrelevant to the Al Qaeda wannabes and illiberal political fanatics of the future.
The Best BioDefense is BioOffense
Technology, not regulation, will protect us from bioterror
Ronald Bailey
Biologically generated superpathogens, beyond the control of medicine, are a truly horrific thought. And in an age when the West is facing enemies clearly not averse to shocking new means of warfare, they might be a horrifically realistic one.
Thusly, the federal government has launched a National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity. The NSABB will be operating by this summer, according to an announcement by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services earlier this month. The NSABB will oversee "dual use" biological research—research that could be used by therapists to cure, but which also could be exploited by potential bioterrorists to kill.
The NSABB will exercise regulatory oversight over any biological experiment that would: make human or animal vaccines ineffective; grant resistance to therapeutically useful antibiotics or antiviral agents for humans, animals, or crops; increase the virulence of human, animal, or plant pathogens, or make nonpathogens virulent; make pathogens more easily transmissibility or alter their host range; help evade diagnostic or detection methods; or enable weaponization of biological agents or toxins.
The NSABB seems intended to function much like the National Institutes of Health's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee (RAC), which has ruled on the safety of genetics research since the 1970s. All experiments would undergo review by the appropriate Institutional Review Boards first, and if additional questions remain about an experiment's national security implications, the NSABB could conduct a further review and suggest limits on what is done and published.
So, with a new federal regulatory agency on the case, are we safe from bioterror now? In reality, this new biosecurity agency will only be regulating respectable researchers at universities and corporations in this country, who are not likely to be the guys cooking up some super-infectious version of smallpox to spread through the New York City subway system. Thus, this new federal effort may well be irrelevant to the Al Qaeda wannabes and illiberal political fanatics of the future.
What we ultimately need to defend ourselves against bioterror is a highly sophisticated biotechnology of our own.
Some commentators, however, advocate not just a unilateral disarmament when it comes to biowar, but deliberately trashing our own defenses. Most notoriously, Bill Joy proposed technological relinquishment as an option in Wired four years ago. Joy argued that humanity must essentially abandon technological progress because our ability to misuse it is far too great. This month, similar sentiments are echoed in Lawrence Lessig's article on "Insanely Destructive Devices," also in Wired.
According to Lessig, the way forward is to reduce the inequities and resentments that might inspire someone to resort to bioterrorism to destroy their enemies. This seems an extremely unlikely strategy, especially when we consider the most notorious bioterrorists of modern times. How could one ever satisfy the bizarre desires of the Aum Shinrikyo death cult?
Biodefense depends not on abandoning technology or appeasing our potential adversaries, but on nurturing a robust biotechnology. Remember, we are talking about "dual use" technologies—for both offense and defense.
First, before we panic about biotoxins, let's think a bit about evolution. If a truly horrific virus or bacteria were easily concocted, it is very likely that Mother Nature would already have generated one. But let us assume the worst: that fiendishly clever evildoers could devise some sort of superplague that would kill off some huge fraction of humanity. A plague as deadly as Ebola, more communicable than the common cold, and with a latency period of several weeks to allow it to spread through unwitting populations.
What would it take to counter such a pathogen? A dynamic and extensive diagnostic and biomedical manufacturing system that could deploy multiple levels of defense, including vaccines, new antibiotics, and other novel targeted therapies. To do that, we need to move ahead with innovative biotech.......
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users