How much information is too much?

[LeapFrog]

So the other day I am readying an article off google news concerning 'backyard dangers'. One of the listed hazards was infection by Baylisascaris, a parasitic worm found in raccoon feces. I hadn't really heard of this before and hit up wikipedia.

Although infection is rare it is serious (and there is no known treatment). Apparently in its standard host species (raccoons for example) the worm just lives in the intestines and generally doesn't cause any significant problems. However in humans the larva escape from the intestine and travel throughout the body. The eyes and brain are apparently common targets... sick stuff.

Anyways, getting to the point -- the following in the Wiki article caught my eye:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylisascaris
[ QUOTE ]

Bioterrorist potential

According to the Centers for Disease Control, several factors make Baylisascaris procyonis a feasible bioterrorist agent:

* The organism is ubiquitous in raccoon populations and therefore easy to acquire.
* Enormous numbers of eggs can be readily obtained, and these eggs can survive in an infectious form for prolonged periods of time.
* The eggs can remain viable in a dilute (0.5%-2%) formalin solution for an indefinite period of time.
* B. procyonis has a relatively small infectious dose.
* The organism causes a severe, frequently fatal infection in humans.
* No effective therapy or vaccine exists.

The eggs are relatively large and thus would readily be removed by standard filtration methods from municipal water supplies. However, it might be possible to introduce the eggs in smaller water systems, in posttreatment water supplies, or in certain food products.


[/ QUOTE ]

The question is, what good can disseminating this information possibly serve? If asked that question back in my teenage years I probably would have responded something along the lines of 'knowledge by itself is neither good nor evil, blah blah'. I am starting to rethink my position however. Thoughts?

[tarheeljks]

i have the same issue w/sites like WebMD

[Blarg]

Well that's gross and disturbing.

This same question has been asked about making the genetic sequences for different viruses known. I've seen it discussed particularly with regard to "improved" strains of smallpox that are essentially incurable and far more communicable than ordinary smallpox, which the Russians were working on and supposedly made significant quantities of. Supposedly enough info on that is now out on the web and commonly available that someone not at all at the top scientific levels could make the equivalent of a doomsday device in a test tube given access to stores of smallpox, which are in multiple, extremely poorly maintained and guarded facilities throughout the old Soviet union.

There are some things that do seem to indicate that not all knowledge is beneficial. It's kind of like a russian roulette situation. Even if the odds are that nothing will happen, the terrible repercussions if something does go wrong makes it a lousy gamble to take.

[Phil153]

The only possible reason that these (and a host of other easy and devastating attacks) haven't happened is that the terrorist threat is completely exaggerated and that those doing terrorism don't seek to harm the US in the ways commonly claimed. There's really no other explanation.

With that in mind, I don't see this information as harmful at all.

[LeapFrog]

[ QUOTE ]
The only possible reason that these (and a host of other easy and devastating attacks) haven't happened is that the terrorist threat is completely exaggerated and that those doing terrorism don't seek to harm the US in the ways commonly claimed. There's really no other explanation.

With that in mind, I don't see this information as harmful at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall hearing something along the lines of other Al-Qaeda leaders were not happy with Osama's 9/11 attacks because they lost their bases in Afghanistan and apparently viewed the whole operation as a net loss. One could perhaps argue that they are 'biding their time.'

At any rate, forget terrorists for a moment. One disgruntled 'mad scientist' could wreak significant havoc with a modified smallpox virus as Blarg suggested. We obviously wouldn't want just anyone to have access to nuclear material but the devastation a pandemic could cause might easily be orders of magnitude greater.

The problem is, who should decide what information is dangerous? Given the rise of the internet is it even possible to keep a lid on things anymore?

[DrewDevil]

free speech >>>>>>> attempts to regulate speech, no matter how well-intentioned

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The only possible reason that these (and a host of other easy and devastating attacks) haven't happened is that the terrorist threat is completely exaggerated and that those doing terrorism don't seek to harm the US in the ways commonly claimed. There's really no other explanation.

With that in mind, I don't see this information as harmful at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

I recall hearing something along the lines of other Al-Qaeda leaders were not happy with Osama's 9/11 attacks because they lost their bases in Afghanistan and apparently viewed the whole operation as a net loss. One could perhaps argue that they are 'biding their time.'

At any rate, forget terrorists for a moment. One disgruntled 'mad scientist' could wreak significant havoc with a modified smallpox virus as Blarg suggested. We obviously wouldn't want just anyone to have access nuclear material but the devastation a pandemic could cause might easily be orders of magnitude greater.

The problem is, who should decide what information is dangerous? Given the rise of the internet is it even possible to keep a lid on things anymore?

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminds me of what I'll just call here "the spaceship issue" that might well pertain to us now and definitely will only pertain to us more as time goes by.

Some people when thinking about the future of the human race say that we will eventually not be dependent on the planet to survive no matter how bad we mess it up, because we will just migrate into space as a species. However, that doesn't seem to hold water.

The only people who can go now are people who are highly trained in very specific needed tasks, and given extensive batteries of psychological and physical tests. Anyone with even a hint of ordinary predictable physical problems or tested psychological responses outside whatever happens to be constructed as a norm has no chance to go.

In the future, we may get costs far, far reduced. But that is not enough to make space travel sensible for more than a fraction of us -- that fraction who are going now, pretty much. The reason is that a spaceship is far more vulnerable than a planet, a country, a city, even a building. All it takes is ONE loony or one mistake or one bit of poor manufacturing or bit of cosmic dust impact to screw up the oxygen, fuel, compression, you name it. This is not the case when you are in a situation with looser tolerances.

Like a spaceship, the earth is at a state now where tolerances for craziness are rapidly narrowing. Before you could have whole nations go crazy to the very best of their ability, even for decades on end, and a thousand or even few hundred miles away, it might mean nothing to anybody else. Whereas before millions might accomplish essentially nothing by way of destroying the species or any significant part of it, now all it takes is a small cadre, or perhaps even one person. The Aum-whatever cult in Japan was quite small, but their release of nerve gas in Japanese subways was an indication of how little you needed in the way of resources when you had a few scientists on your side -- and how loonies don't just come from the third world and the ignorant.

As the knowledge of how to make everything from viruses to nuclear weapons spreads, we are faced with an ever growing potential of catastrophy not due to the fact that we are as vulnerable as a spaceship populated by even the most scrupulously vetted of men, but we approach the same danger from a different direction -- we ourselves are far deadlier than we have ever been before. That puts us in a surprisingly similar position to the crew in a spaceship.

At this point, knowledge has, as already recognized by governments, become a weapon of war, a munition, and is codified into law as such. Not recognizing its status as such is merely entering into a state of denial. A free society may yet prevent someone from shouting fire in a movie theater without threat of repercussion. It may reign in libel and slander. Given the threat bows and arrows pose to the species, it can well afford to let that knowledge disseminate freely. But at some point, the threat of what is possible with knowledge of certain things becomes itself more than information. By dint of numbers, inevitably, some knowledge will be misused. Many jetliners were flown before 9/11. The risk of teaching people to fly is not catastrophic, especially compared to benefits, and it is not likely to go wrong. Yet it did go wrong. We still fly because there are benefits.

What is the benefit of a super smallpox that could wipe out humanity? Is there any purpose at all? Jetliners have a purpose. Free speech, likewise, has a positive purpose. But isn't it clear that free speech does not always have a positive purpose? Wartime, which demands secrecy about troop movements and such, is another clear example that the idea of free speech needs to be taken in context to make any sense at all. Dispensing information with no positive purpose on the one hand and the potential to destroy the human race on the other is clearly yet another example that shows that treating free speech as a top priority has limited value.

[DrewDevil]

There has never been a famine in a nation with a free press. This is not a coincidence. DUCY?

Free speech is the single best weapon against government totalitarianism, and is therefore much more important any any threat, real or imagined.

[Blarg]

There's free speech, and then there's free speech. We don't have pure free speech here, and probably no place ever has or ever will. DUCY?

[daveT]

There was a study about the "doomsday switch."

After the cold war, a study was conducted on the people that were responsible for pressing the button.

It was discovered that the people would not have been able to push the button. There is a difference between murder and genocide, and a difference between genocide and wiping out the entire human race.

An interesting quote, that I don't know where I heard it from, maybe it was a movie, a book, or maybe someone told this to me a truth, either way it is something to think about.

"My dad used to work in one of the places that launched a nuclear missile at Russia. Only two people worked in that room. He wasn't responsible for pressing the button, he was responsible for shooting the man who was supposed to press the button."