ikrase comments on A brief history of ethically concerned scientists - Less Wrong

68 Post author: Kaj_Sotala 09 February 2013 05:50AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (150)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Izeinwinter 12 February 2013 02:08:26PM 6 points [-]

You are missing a major problem. Not "secrecy will kill progress" That is, in this context, a lesser problem. The major problem is that scientific secrecy would eventually kill the planet.

In a context of ongoing research and use of any discipline, Dangerous techniques must be published, or they will be duplicated over and over again, until they cause major damage. If the toxicity of Dimethylmercury was a secret, chemical laboratories and entire college campuses dying slowly, horrifically and painfully would be regular occurrences. No scientific work is done without a context, and so all discoveries will happen again. If you do not flag any landmines you spot , someone not-quite-as-sharp will eventually reach the same territory and step on them. If you find a technique you consider a threat to the world, it is now your problem to deal with, and secrecy is never going to be a sufficient response, but is instead merely an abdication of moral responsibility onto the next person to get there.

Comment author: ikrase 12 February 2013 03:03:01PM 1 point [-]

My impression of this post was not that it made a focused argument in favor of secrecy specifically.

Comment author: ewbrownv 12 February 2013 10:49:22PM 1 point [-]

It's a recitation of arguments and anecdotes in favor of secrecy, so of course it's an argument in that direction. If that wasn't the intention there would also have been anti-secrecy arguments and anecdotes.

Comment author: Kaj_Sotala 13 February 2013 06:08:48AM 0 points [-]
Comment author: ikrase 14 February 2013 05:58:47AM 0 points [-]

Also, I said focused argument.