Good question, and a difficult one to answer comprehensively. Generally I’d say if the information is sufficiently dangerous to know, then destroying that knowledge for -everyone- including the original possessor of that knowledge is a reasonable choice. The knowledge of how precisely to make a nuclear bomb is not necessarily going to benefit anyone. But given something where that isn’t an option, such as mapping a virus to attempt to fight it, I’d say the information still should be available.
Mind you, I recognize this is an idealistic viewpoint. But I also recognize I will not be the end arbiter of informational dissemination. I just seek to get us closer to the point where someone else can agonize over these issues.
How do you feel about information hazards?
Good question, and a difficult one to answer comprehensively. Generally I’d say if the information is sufficiently dangerous to know, then destroying that knowledge for -everyone- including the original possessor of that knowledge is a reasonable choice. The knowledge of how precisely to make a nuclear bomb is not necessarily going to benefit anyone. But given something where that isn’t an option, such as mapping a virus to attempt to fight it, I’d say the information still should be available.
Mind you, I recognize this is an idealistic viewpoint. But I also recognize I will not be the end arbiter of informational dissemination. I just seek to get us closer to the point where someone else can agonize over these issues.