You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

saturn comments on The basic argument for the feasibility of transhumanism - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: ChrisHallquist 14 October 2012 08:04AM

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

Comments (36)

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

Comment author: saturn 14 October 2012 11:31:32PM 4 points [-]

EMP destroys equipment by inducing high voltage and current in unshielded conductors, which act as antennas. The amount of energy picked up is related to the length of the conductor, with shorter conductors picking up less energy. Anything small enough to be described as "nanotechnology" would probably be unaffected, as long as it's not connected to unshielded external wiring. (An unmodified human touching a conductor would also experience an electric shock during an EMP.)

Comment author: Zaine 15 October 2012 01:56:36AM 0 points [-]

Thank you! That makes me very happy.

Comment author: V_V 15 October 2012 08:05:04PM 0 points [-]

Why do you particularly care about EMP?

Comment author: Zaine 15 October 2012 09:23:11PM 0 points [-]

I was worried that human augmentation might come at the cost of susceptibility to EMP's: tricksters finding it humourous to walk around with controlled radii EMP devices and troubling augmented humans.

Comment author: V_V 15 October 2012 09:40:07PM 2 points [-]

As opposed to beating random people with a stick, for instance? Try not to worry about unlikely things

Comment author: Zaine 16 October 2012 06:03:33AM 0 points [-]

Point taken. But the repercussions of EMP disruption of augmented humans aren't akin to playful beatings with sticks: an augmented eye short-circuiting, an augmented arm rendered considerably heavy dead weight, an artificial heart stopped.

Unless of course you meant stick-beatings of a fatal or maiming nature, in which case I would not call them tricksters but thugs. Sorry if my diction misled.

Comment author: V_V 16 October 2012 02:48:35PM *  2 points [-]

to playful beatings with sticks

'playful' beatings with sticks?

an artificial heart stopped

Indeed. Messing with people's implanted devices, whether it is a standard pacemaker or sci-fiesque medical nanotech, would be a severe act of assault, not a prank.

What puzzles me is why you care about this particular type of assault, since other types seem much more likely.

Comment author: Zaine 16 October 2012 08:56:30PM *  0 points [-]

'playful' beatings with sticks?

That was the only way I could reconcile 'beating random people with a stick' and 'tricksters'; 16th century vagabonds in London, for instance, may have found it an amusing pastime.

What puzzles me is why you care about this particular type of assault, since other types seem much more likely.

EMP assaults come (or came, if it indeed would not prove problematic) across as the largest obstacle in ensuring augmentation's safety from malicious attacks, as it would be difficult to identify a guilty party in a crowd, and attacks might, if the technology develops to allow for it, be relatively easy to carry out.

What types of assaults do you consider having a higher probability?

  • Ah, I think I may understand you now. You mean why do I care about how augmented humans may be attacked, when similar technology could be used to much more nefarious ends? To that I say I do not have the requisite knowledge base for grounding any such speculations in reality.