Dear editor (to the Washington Post but not printed),
Pandemic “transmission enhancing experiments”
(“Dangerous experiments, veiled in secrecy” 2-28-19) and Charlie Jane Anders’
fear of nuclear weapons (“Pop Culture needs to go nuclear again” printed beside
the other) have two important things in common. First, they both identify profoundly monstrous
human technological threats needing urgent attention. Second, they both need a another
perspective offering the reasons why scientists secretly invest in both
potentially beneficial advances. But the
real question both opinions left out is what is the root cause driving the
evolution of these (and other) mass murder technologies.
Marc Leptsitch and Tom Inglesby
clearly describe the potential catastrophic risk of enhancing existing plague
viruses. But they failed to mention the likely, even greater catastrophic risk
of not doing so. Only after steadfast
scientists who are committed to protecting human security have successfully
tweaked the Bird Flu for maximum killing capacity -- can they then develop the
vaccine to prevent it -- or the antidote to protect those infected by it – that
our steadfast enemy scientists are probably already working on.
And, with the risks of nuclear war
increasing (see escalating violence between India and Pakistan, or Israel and
Iran, not to mention other superpower tensions) with no way of immunizing
humanity against a nuclear blast or it’s down wind consequences, there is only
one reason to make technological advances. The strategy of Mutually Assured Destruction
(MAD) has kept these horrific weapons quiet for 70 years. Looking past the crazy idea of using a few
nuclear detonations to stir up enough dust to cool the planet before its
flooded, we should be advocating for more nuclear powered electric generating plants
to reduce carbon emissions. And,
perfecting a few nuclear bombs for planetary defense against asteroid and other
heavenly uses may also be warranted.
But, the most important question not
raised? Why are mass murder technologies
in such unyielding demand? Is it
possible that the existing planetary priority of protecting the national
sovereignty of nation states instead of universal human rights is driving us toward
such profound risks?
It would be helpful if the Washington
Post or any other respected news agency would document the profound human and
national security benefits of funding the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. And the possibility of freezing and seizing
illicit offshore accounts to fund them.
The U.S.
is funding dangerous experiments it doesn’t want you to know about. By
Pop
culture is no longer full of apocalyptic nuclear visions. That’s too bad. By Charlie Jane Anders. February 27 at 6:37 PM
No comments:
Post a Comment