# Could science go too far and destroy the world? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 29, 2015, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935 "2015-09-29T10:02:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/1 "2015-09-29T10:02:58Z")
I admire scientific progress when its used for the good. Ex. alternative sources of energy, methods of curing disease, or methods to grow more food. But at the same time I wonder if its possible that some group of scientists somewhere could somehow create a weapon that could destroy the earth? Examples: 1. A cobalt thermonuclear mega bomb. 2. A genetically engineered disease. 3. A super intelligent computer system. 4. Nanotechnology Who would have thought even 50 years ago a few dozen middle eastern terrorists could have pulled off 9/11? What then could a few dozen scientists do with todays advanced scientific resources do? This site: [Yes, One Person Could Actually Destroy the World](http://io9.com/could-a-single-individual-really-destroy-the-world-1471212186)talks about such things. A quote from a senior Pentagon official: “Somewhere in the back of my mind I still have this picture of five smart guys from Somalia or some other non-developed nation who see the opportunity to change the world. To turn the world upside down. Military applications of molecular manufacturing have even greater potential than nuclear weapons to radically change the balance of powers.” It’s scary stuff. I know when they were building the first atomic weapons many scientists wondered about where nuclear energy could go and if they indeed were working on something which could destroy the world. And the scary part is I really dont see any of the world military’s or intelligence communities readying themselves to stop just such an event because many times indeed those host countries are developing just such technology. What do you all think? ---
**Author:** ![PatrickLondon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/patricklondon/32/4422_2.png) [@PatrickLondon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatrickLondon)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/2 "2015-09-29T10:25:03Z")
Science won’t. People might. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/3 "2015-09-29T12:19:17Z")
I’m scared of nanotechnology too. If you can’t see it, you don’t know what it’s up to. ---
**Author:** ![beowulff](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/beowulff/32/542_2.png) [@beowulff](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beowulff)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/4 "2015-09-29T12:30:29Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’m scared of nanotechnology too. > > If you can’t see it, you don’t know what it’s up to. Nanotechnology is (IMHO) a dead end. What you should really be worrying about is biological engineering. ---
**Author:** ![Grey](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b782af/32.png) [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/5 "2015-09-29T12:34:57Z")
> [@Jackmannii](#): > > I’m scared of nanotechnology too. > > If you can’t see it, you don’t know what it’s up to. Well that also covers radiation, pollution, “germs” and whatever the hell is going on inside people’s heads at any given moment. ---
**Author:** ![Francis\_Vaughan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/francis_vaughan/32/3093_2.png) [@Francis\_Vaughan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Francis_Vaughan)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 12:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/6 "2015-09-29T12:37:21Z")
Depends upon what you mean by “science” and “the world”. A lot of times the world seems to be synonymous with “human civilisation” which is a bit of a stretch. Perhaps all of the human race. Then one can extend things to “all life”. But this still isn’t “the world” as in “the planet”. We probably have the capability already in terms of nuclear weaponry if used with some planing and care to wipe out all of civilization, and maybe down to the entire human race, but that would take some effort. About out best bet for a really good bit of obliteration would be to start work on steering an Earth grazing asteroid onto a solid collision path. Even then we would not manage to wipe out all life. Might set things back a few hundred million years. Give the cephalopods a crack at being the next master species. (I for one welcome our tentacled overlords.) But could scientific efforts give birth to a capability that would allow a single deranged person to wipe out the world - at any definition? Probably not within our current imagination of feasible things." Not even 12 Monkeys style. The world is a big place, and humans very diverse and populous. That is where the real threat is. Malthus tends to suggest how things might go pear shaped, and scientific advances in health and general exploitation of resources are the keys. Which brings us back to **PatrickLondon** ’s point. People are the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Smeghead](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Smeghead](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smeghead)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/7 "2015-09-29T13:14:17Z")
“Science” has never dropped a nuclear bomb or blown up a building. Those are actions taken by people. Science is a tool. Like all tools, it can be used for good, evil, or anything in between. Blaming science for bad things that happens is like blaming the manufacturer of airplane engines for 9/11. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/8 "2015-09-29T14:22:31Z")
We are not even remotely close to being able to destroy the planet. The best plans we could implement now for that, even if we were actually trying for it, would take thousands of years. By which time we’d probably have more efficient ways of doing it, but that’s not relevant now. We could make a credible attempt at destroying the entire human species, but even there, we’d be unlikely to succeed. There are just too many of us, spread out over too much of the world, in too many environments and ways of life. We could definitely destroy human civilization if we wanted to, and might even end up doing so without intending to. But one hopes not. And if we avoid that fate, it’ll be through science, as well. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/9 "2015-09-29T14:31:40Z")
Science is a tool, and I believe it is usually the best method to accomplish a goal, whether that goal is ‘minimizing human suffering’, or ‘atomizing humans into stuffing’. As to what the goals should be – I think we’d have to turn to other disciplines. ---
**Author:** ![Anaamika](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Anaamika](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Anaamika)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/10 "2015-09-29T14:35:55Z")
> [@PatrickLondon](#): > > Science won’t. > > People might. This. I hate when people demonize “science”. You may as well demonize religion - after all, religion is killed a lot of people. Wait. Nope. I was wrong. _People_ have killed people. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/11 "2015-09-29T14:48:43Z")
Since this requires speculation, let’s move it to Great Debates. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![swampspruce](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/swampspruce/32/261_2.png) [@swampspruce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swampspruce)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/12 "2015-09-29T15:08:18Z")
In a metaphysical way it already has. If you think of the world as human civilization it has been altered so drastically since the Industrial Revolution that it would be almost unrecognizable to someone from as little as 250 years ago. While there would definitely be fragments they would know (like a few buildings in their hometown, say) and they could probably make do, that is more testament to human adaptability than anything else. Personally, I worry less about the Bang! and worry more about the whimper… I suspect we will be decimated by something like Nature run amok than man made, per se. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/13 "2015-09-29T15:15:41Z")
I would also point out that the greatest environmental crisis we are facing requires no science beyond what was discovered leading up to the industrial revolution. Namely the ability to burn down forests and dig up coal. Improvements in technology are more likely to end up helping avoid this crisis than they are to add to it. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/14 "2015-09-29T16:29:08Z")
If I was going to try and destroy the earth id drill a series of well bores about 15,000-20,000 ft deep around the equator at maybe 3-5 mile spacing. Then I’d put the largest nuke I could in each one. I know there is some science to blast sequencing so that you can cut a line between the bore holes. I’d set the nukes off in that pattern. I don’t know if I’d succcessfully cut the Earth in half but that is the only way I can come up with to destroy the planet ---
**Author:** ![eburacum45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eburacum45/32/8690_2.png) [@eburacum45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eburacum45)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/15 "2015-09-29T20:11:54Z")
All you would achieve would be a massive explosion that went right round the Earth’s crust. Impressive, but as close to splitting the Earth in half as zesting a lemon is to slicing it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/16 "2015-09-29T20:21:56Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Nanotechnology is (IMHO) a dead end. > What you should really be worrying about is biological engineering. Why? [GMO foods](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GMO) ain’t really all that scary, though there might be some environmental reasons to be cautious about them. Or are you thinking of military applications, genetically-engineered plagues/bioweapons? ---
**Author:** ![Habeed](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a587f6/32.png) [@Habeed](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Habeed)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/17 "2015-09-29T21:05:20Z")
> [@beowulff](#): > > Nanotechnology is (IMHO) a dead end. > What you should really be worrying about is biological engineering. Do you have any sources or reasoned arguments for your position whatsoever? “Machine phase chemistry” is a hugely complex endeavor to get working, but existing models of molecular dynamics all say it’s possible, and basic science experiments have demonstrated at least the primitive steps are feasible. (molecular motors, logic circuits, and vacuum chemical reactions have all been demoed in various experiments) Sure, you’re not going to get useful results anytime soon - you’re talking about building (tethered) robotic systems capable of manufacturing things, and the ultimate goal of self replication means you have to somehow design tens of thousands of robotic systems that produce all the required parts. You would need procedural design software for this and possibly decades of R&D. But calling it a dead end sounds pretty ignorant. “meh, fission reactions are a dead end” is what I’m hearing from you. To show it is a dead end, you need to show me, with cites : a. The laws of physics deny vacuum chamber machine phase chemistry. “machine phase” means that instead of relying on statistics, you control the position and orientation of reacting species. “vacuum chamber” just means it happens in what it sounds, instead of aqueous solution. OR b. It isn’t impossible, but it is so incredibly difficult that human beings will not accomplish it in any feasible timespan. There isn’t, say, a way to build a prototype assembly system that makes one simple product, and develop a software package that auto-designs an assembly system to make a similar product, and thus reduce the complexity problem to something manageable… As a doomsday weapon, machine phase systems could be bad, but all the plans to build them include a. Requiring a clean vacuum for all the functional parts. These kind of nanotech systems will be required to stay in a vacuum chamber their entire functional lives, from creation to wearout. This is because even the tiniest contaminant would disrupt their operation or cause failure b. Don’t store the blueprints for a system on a computer that isn’t itself a macroscale system - easy to smash with a hammer. This is to prevent uncontrolled self replication no matter what. There are engineering reasons for (a) and (b), so someone would have to go enormously out of their way to build a system that can function in the dirty natural world. I’m not sure it’s even possible. But if it is, yeah, “living” self replicating robot systems that are made out of diamond and run off sunlight would be able to grey goo the planet. It is unlikely that anything in the natural world would be able to compete because intelligent design actually is a far better solution than evolution. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/18 "2015-09-29T21:25:45Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Who would have thought even 50 years ago a few dozen middle eastern terrorists could have pulled off 9/11? This kinda jumps out at me for some reason. Americans of 50 years ago, i.e. 1965, could easily remember the kamikaze attacks of 20 years earlier and maybe even that day in 1945 when a fog-confused bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. Granted, Middle Eastern malcontents would not have been on anyone’s radar, but the technological aspects of such an attack were well established even then. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [September 29, 2015, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/19 "2015-09-29T21:55:51Z")
Some think it already has. That with climate change we’ve pushed past the tipping point. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2015, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935/20 "2015-09-30T00:06:10Z")
> [@Habeed](#): > > Do you have any sources or reasoned arguments for your position whatsoever? [Well, nanotech is not necessarily a dead end, but it has been overhyped.](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Nanotechnology) > [@](#): > > **In science woo** > > “No, you don’t get it. You are still in a pretend world where atoms go where you want because your computer program directs them to go there.” > > —Richard Smalley to Drexler > > The popular conception of nanotechnology is Eric Drexler’s concept of nanobots, like industrial robots scaled down a billion times. This is entirely made of bollocks and would violate physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics.[7][1] However, not many people realise why it’s bollocks, as it isn’t really due to us limiting what our technology might one day do, it’s purely down to the physics of how the world works. > > The rules of mechanics don’t scale evenly with size — consider surface to volume ratios, which are why the energy consumed by small rodents per unit of mass is different from that for elephants, and why the aerodynamics of a Boeing 747 are different from a small 747-shaped toy. At the molecular level, the world is considerably different to macro scale. A solvent like water would feel more like treacle, and anything floating in it would be at the mercy of brownian motion that would make even the strongest rip currents look quite weak. > > Imagine what manufacturing would look like if your machines’ gears rotated randomly, the size of the gears’ teeth fluctuated randomly, and everything (gears, grippers, working materials) is coated in glue. > > That Drexler has pushed an idea which is actually impossible has not deterred nanotech fans, who get as upset as they usually do when an expert in a field they’re talking about points out they’re simply wrong, apparently from an emotional sunk cost fallacy. > > Transhumanists routinely casually throw biology out the window, but with nanobot advocacy they manage the same contempt for chemistry and physics. (Michael Anissimov, then of SIAI, advocated Digital Rights Management as the way to control dangerous science woo nanotechnology,[8] thus also casually throwing mathematics out the window.) In cryonics, “but, nanobots!” is the standard answer to any objection. Some cryonics advocates are finally pointing out that this is not quite rational.[9] > > Advocates of nanotech woo often tag life “soft nanotech”, as if that makes “hard nanotech” (woo) merely unrealised rather than impossible. This is in reference to the fact that such “hard” nano-tech seems to imply solid, robot-like structures (made of diamond, for example) while “soft” is closer to more malleable molecular structures. It’s a bit like calling speech “soft telepathy” to imply that “hard telepathy” is a difference of degree, rather than kind. > > \ > > **In reality** > > Reality is rather duller than fiction — unless you like the actual science, of course. > > Current nanotechnology focuses on creating much simpler structures, such as nanoparticles that can deliver drugs to specific cells, and materials with advantageous properties. Better understanding of materials at the nanoscale is explaining many apparently odd things. Nanoparticles (colloids) of gold are red, rather than yellow as the bulk metal is, and this effect is responsible for the colours of medieval stained glass. Some of the odd properties of soot are because it contains buckyballs and nanotubes. Scientists working on these nano-scaled advances tend to refer to it as either “chemistry” or “materials science”, as “nanotechnology” is not a functioning research field in its own right and is just an umbrella term for a variety of research ventures that span multiple disciplines (and a handy buzzword to get funding from people who think they’re buying magical robots). > > Molecular recognition — the ability for catalysts to actively recognise and orientate their substrates — is an emerging area of research and could become the norm for chemical synthesis in a few decades. However, this still relies on normal chemical synthetic routes with one catalyst tuned to one reaction (or group of reactions). > > Molecular nanotechnology, which aims to engineer mechanical systems at the molecular level, is barely in its infancy. The dream of assembling molecules “atom by atom” may not even be possible in the sense claimed by those writing about nanobots. So far, scientists are pretty good at arranging atoms in patterns with a scanning tunneling microscope (STM), as was famously done by IBM to demonstrate STM technology, and making “quantum corals” that demonstrate the wave-like properties of electrons. If nanomachines are built, they will work much more like the currently-known nanomachines — antibodies and proteins and so forth, restricted to catalysing only one family of reactions — and more complicated nanomachines will be closer to the size of biological cells. > > Mechanical nanocomputers are theoretically possible, and research is steadily getting there. So far there’s a 300nm electromechanical reed relay gate[17][18] and an inverter that runs at 500kHz.[19] The application is environments that would trash electronics, e.g. high temperatures. For comparison, current computers’ electronic transistors are on the order of 22nm (as of 2012) and mainstream consumer computer chips run at between 1GHz and 4GHz or so. > > That’s not to say that this stuff isn’t insanely cool. For instance, sending in a specially-designed killer molecule to cure cancer.[20] Holy crap! > > It should be noted that there are examples of self replicating machines that dig into the ground and vacuum up the atmosphere. They sense the available resources of the surrounding territory and assemble useful products, even erecting mini solar panels to assist the process as well as producing the next generation of their initial seeding mechanism, all fully automated and largely unattended. They are called things like “tomato plants”. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-science-go-too-far-and-destroy-the-world/732935.md?page=2)