It’s regulation that’s stopping the sale of nuclear weapons to the general populace. If there where several thousand of the thing in random peoples hands globally you can expect one of them to have been stolen and used. Or just purchased with the intent to make a statement.
The people capable and interested in building them have no interest in such, regardless of regulation. There also don't seem to be buyers on the other end to motivate anyone with money. If you did build such a thing for cash, you can't assume it won't be used on you or your loved ones.
Your argument is assuming a market that is not there. It's also a disgustingly cynical view of humanity that I care not to entertain.
The people capable and interested in building them have no interest in such, regardless of regulation.
That’s an extraordinarily optimistic view of humanity. How to you align that with say the tobacco industry which actively spent money to kill ever more people by getting the young addicted? I honestly don’t want to change your mind, but I am curious about how you could think that in the face of what some people will do for money.
Tobacco had hundreds of years of use as a medicinal before we realized anything about addictions and cancer.[1] It also looks to be a very viable biofuel (at least a GM'd, non-smokable version of it) providing 3x per acre the amount of ethanol per acre as corn and 3x per acre the amount of oil as soy. It's also a natural pesticide & insect repellant and source of saltpeter/potassium nitrate.
Not just that, but smokers mostly just hurt themselves and smoke for the benefits nicotine provides them. People drink alcohol too and that's not good for you either.
We will be growing and selling tobacco long after people stop smoking it.
I'm not aware of any medicinal benefits of nuclear weapons or nerve gas. Almost nobody has any reason to produce either.
This is veering off into stupid territory.
The practice of Tobacco companies looking for new younger customers continued well after the harmful effects where known. Here’s a direct quote on the topic.
"Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers. Repeated government studies (Appendix B) have shown that:
Less than one-third of smokers (31%) start after age 18.
Only 5% of smokers start after age 24
Thus, today's young adult smoking behavior will largely determine the trend of industry volume over the next several decades. If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population that does not give birth will eventually dwindle. In such an environment, a positive RJR sales trend would require disproportionate share gains and/or steep price increases (which could depress volume)."
original quote from the internal documents of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, circa 1985, in the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (note that statistics are out-of-date).
But thanks for helping me to understand where you’re coming from.
Comments
My argument was that _regulation_ doesn't stop these things. Your argument is still not a refutation of that.
Regulation is not the reason that people don't use the technology. It turns out that most people aren't assholes.
And notice how all of the access to said technology is still there.
It’s regulation that’s stopping the sale of nuclear weapons to the general populace. If there where several thousand of the thing in random peoples hands globally you can expect one of them to have been stolen and used. Or just purchased with the intent to make a statement.
You're making several leaps of logic there.
The people capable and interested in building them have no interest in such, regardless of regulation. There also don't seem to be buyers on the other end to motivate anyone with money. If you did build such a thing for cash, you can't assume it won't be used on you or your loved ones.
Your argument is assuming a market that is not there. It's also a disgustingly cynical view of humanity that I care not to entertain.
That’s an extraordinarily optimistic view of humanity. How to you align that with say the tobacco industry which actively spent money to kill ever more people by getting the young addicted? I honestly don’t want to change your mind, but I am curious about how you could think that in the face of what some people will do for money.
That's just naive.
Tobacco had hundreds of years of use as a medicinal before we realized anything about addictions and cancer.[1] It also looks to be a very viable biofuel (at least a GM'd, non-smokable version of it) providing 3x per acre the amount of ethanol per acre as corn and 3x per acre the amount of oil as soy. It's also a natural pesticide & insect repellant and source of saltpeter/potassium nitrate.
Not just that, but smokers mostly just hurt themselves and smoke for the benefits nicotine provides them. People drink alcohol too and that's not good for you either.
We will be growing and selling tobacco long after people stop smoking it.
I'm not aware of any medicinal benefits of nuclear weapons or nerve gas. Almost nobody has any reason to produce either. This is veering off into stupid territory.
[1]:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1079499/
The practice of Tobacco companies looking for new younger customers continued well after the harmful effects where known. Here’s a direct quote on the topic.
"Younger adult smokers are the only source of replacement smokers. Repeated government studies (Appendix B) have shown that: Less than one-third of smokers (31%) start after age 18. Only 5% of smokers start after age 24 Thus, today's young adult smoking behavior will largely determine the trend of industry volume over the next several decades. If younger adults turn away from smoking, the industry must decline, just as a population that does not give birth will eventually dwindle. In such an environment, a positive RJR sales trend would require disproportionate share gains and/or steep price increases (which could depress volume)." original quote from the internal documents of the R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, circa 1985, in the collection of Stanford Research Into the Impact of Tobacco Advertising (note that statistics are out-of-date).
But thanks for helping me to understand where you’re coming from.