see the fear-mongering associated with the startup of the new collider at CERN.
Was there really deceptive fear-mongering? That’s news to me. Fear was overblown, but I don’t think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.
A slowdown in new science is the one thing I am certain will increase future risks
I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?
Fear was overblown, but I don’t think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.
I’m not highly read on the criticisms, but it wouldn’t surprise me if someone vaguely influential invoked the CERN hysteria to argue for reducing the funding of basic research. But I don’t have a cite for you.
I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?
It’s not clear to me that asteroid impacts, major plagues, or becoming caught in a Malthusian trap are not x-risks on the same order of magnitude as man-made x-risks. (Yes, a Malthusian trap is man-made, but it can’t necessarily be prevented by stopping scientific research). And for man-made x-risks, what is the mechanism for “seeing the disaster coming” that isn’t essentially doing more research?
Making science slow down means that you make the best and brightest not do their best in the research. So this drives them to optimizing algorithmical trading.
Also, you would want to slow down the research of new things and imncrease the research of implications; but how do you draw a line? Is the fact that a nuclear reactor can go critical and level a nearby city a useful cautionary knowledge about building power plant or a “stop giving them ideas” thing?
ETA: I do not mean that any of the currently running reactors is that bad — I mean how to research nuclear fission in years 1900-1925 to have a safe nuclear power plant before a nuclear bomb.
I do not say that a modern nuclear reactor can level a city. I don’t even claim or disclaim that the worst currently running nuclear reactor can level a city under reasonably imaginable coditions (I tend to agree that the fallout will be a problem, but a full-scale nuclear explosion is very unlikely but I have not enough evidence and knowledge to be sure either way).
I describe a situtation of the research of nuclear fission. Imagine that someone knows that a bigger pile of uranium emits more radiation and wants to build a power plant based on this in 10–20 years. Some research is done to be able to predict the behaviour of such a system — of course, there are no power plant designs from Earth-2010-our-timeline.
How should one do the research to prevent Chernobyl type disasters, minimize the risk of Fukushima type disasters and not find something that makes military build a nuclear bomb before first nuclear power plant is built?
Note that one needs to do enrichment both for a power plant and for a bomb.
It is true that simply piling even warhead-grade enriched uranium will not lead to a weapon-scale explosion, but the results of building a reactor without careful research into implications are not likely to be good.
Was there really deceptive fear-mongering? That’s news to me. Fear was overblown, but I don’t think anyone was using it for anything other than what they thought was safety.
I highly doubt this. All plausible major x-risks appear to be man-made. Slowing down would give us more time to see them coming. Why would it undercut our ability to deal with a disaster?
I’m not highly read on the criticisms, but it wouldn’t surprise me if someone vaguely influential invoked the CERN hysteria to argue for reducing the funding of basic research. But I don’t have a cite for you.
It’s not clear to me that asteroid impacts, major plagues, or becoming caught in a Malthusian trap are not x-risks on the same order of magnitude as man-made x-risks. (Yes, a Malthusian trap is man-made, but it can’t necessarily be prevented by stopping scientific research). And for man-made x-risks, what is the mechanism for “seeing the disaster coming” that isn’t essentially doing more research?
A major plague is not, strictly speaking, an existential risk, although it would deal a lot of suffering. It will delay malthusian trap, though...
Making science slow down means that you make the best and brightest not do their best in the research. So this drives them to optimizing algorithmical trading.
Also, you would want to slow down the research of new things and imncrease the research of implications; but how do you draw a line? Is the fact that a nuclear reactor can go critical and level a nearby city a useful cautionary knowledge about building power plant or a “stop giving them ideas” thing?
ETA: I do not mean that any of the currently running reactors is that bad — I mean how to research nuclear fission in years 1900-1925 to have a safe nuclear power plant before a nuclear bomb.
If you claim that a modern nuclear reactor can level a nearby city, you are telling a falsehood.
I was slightly unclear. Your statement is true.
I do not say that a modern nuclear reactor can level a city. I don’t even claim or disclaim that the worst currently running nuclear reactor can level a city under reasonably imaginable coditions (I tend to agree that the fallout will be a problem, but a full-scale nuclear explosion is very unlikely but I have not enough evidence and knowledge to be sure either way).
I describe a situtation of the research of nuclear fission. Imagine that someone knows that a bigger pile of uranium emits more radiation and wants to build a power plant based on this in 10–20 years. Some research is done to be able to predict the behaviour of such a system — of course, there are no power plant designs from Earth-2010-our-timeline.
How should one do the research to prevent Chernobyl type disasters, minimize the risk of Fukushima type disasters and not find something that makes military build a nuclear bomb before first nuclear power plant is built?
Note that one needs to do enrichment both for a power plant and for a bomb.
It is true that simply piling even warhead-grade enriched uranium will not lead to a weapon-scale explosion, but the results of building a reactor without careful research into implications are not likely to be good.