n4. Xrisk is not always risky to the developer: the Atomic bomb creators did not feel the effects of their weapons personally. in this way an x-risk can be catastrophic but not personally of consequence. I was suggesting something to overcome this predicament. Where one goverment might commission a scientist to design a bioweapon to be released on another country and offer to defend/immunise the creators.
Its a commons-binding contract that discourages the individual. it only takes one. which is the challenge of humans taking x-risky actions, it is not always of direct consequence to the individual (or it may not feel that way to the individual)
n5. radiation from space that we are not currently accustomed to or protected from would be an x-risk to the biological population.
n7. as a way to increase the number of colonies nearby, creating another moon that is close to earth might be easier and cheaper and more viable than mars. Although I might be completely wrong and mars might be easier. really depends on how much inter-colony travel there will likely be.
n1. I meant—buy up supply of nuclear material, push the price above viable for a long time, therefore discouraging the development of surrounding technology.
I got your idea: I think it should be covered in x-risk law. Something like Article 1: Any one, who consciously or unconsciously is rising x-risks will go to jail.
Ozone level depletion is not proved to be extinction level event, but is really nasty thing anyway. It could be solved without nanobots, by injecting right chemicals.
NASA is planning to attract small asteroid so it may work, but can’t be main solution. May be useful step.
Market forces will rise uranium supply.
You don’t need a lot of uranium if you are going to enrich it in centrifuges.
If you are really going to limit supply, its better to try to buy all the best scientists in field. US in 90s were buying Russian scientists who worked previously on secret biological weapons.
The other advantage of forcing people to use a limited supply of radioactive material in a reaction would be enhanced safety of doing so as well. (in the case of a failure there will be less total material to account for)
n4. Xrisk is not always risky to the developer: the Atomic bomb creators did not feel the effects of their weapons personally. in this way an x-risk can be catastrophic but not personally of consequence. I was suggesting something to overcome this predicament. Where one goverment might commission a scientist to design a bioweapon to be released on another country and offer to defend/immunise the creators.
Its a commons-binding contract that discourages the individual. it only takes one. which is the challenge of humans taking x-risky actions, it is not always of direct consequence to the individual (or it may not feel that way to the individual)
n5. radiation from space that we are not currently accustomed to or protected from would be an x-risk to the biological population.
n7. as a way to increase the number of colonies nearby, creating another moon that is close to earth might be easier and cheaper and more viable than mars. Although I might be completely wrong and mars might be easier. really depends on how much inter-colony travel there will likely be.
n1. I meant—buy up supply of nuclear material, push the price above viable for a long time, therefore discouraging the development of surrounding technology.
I got your idea: I think it should be covered in x-risk law. Something like Article 1: Any one, who consciously or unconsciously is rising x-risks will go to jail.
Ozone level depletion is not proved to be extinction level event, but is really nasty thing anyway. It could be solved without nanobots, by injecting right chemicals.
NASA is planning to attract small asteroid so it may work, but can’t be main solution. May be useful step. Market forces will rise uranium supply.
You don’t need a lot of uranium if you are going to enrich it in centrifuges.
If you are really going to limit supply, its better to try to buy all the best scientists in field. US in 90s were buying Russian scientists who worked previously on secret biological weapons.
The other advantage of forcing people to use a limited supply of radioactive material in a reaction would be enhanced safety of doing so as well. (in the case of a failure there will be less total material to account for)