I have thought about your comment.

And it's just a rant about ignoring crypto. Which has no actual value and use-case in a real economy where people need to spend money to keep people earning ( and spending) money.

I actually agree with those "old folks" and I'm only 33.. you're comment only makes sense from a greedy standing concerning crypto, not any other tech.

Additionally, your comment "in jest" is just immoral to 99% of the people. Yuk.

Bioweapons also scare the bejesus out of "the establishment".

Does that mean we should all be developing bioweapons?

I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern. My concern is not with the device establishment is scared of. My concern is with the fact that people, who appear to making decision about those devices know little to nothing about them.

Half of them wouldn't know how to change a font in a document and yet they want to decide the path technology takes?

It really is an extension of the dilemma presented by Douglas Adams:

"To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it. To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job"

> I think you misunderstood the core issue of my concern.

Did I? You yourself said that your complaint about people's knowledge was a "side rant". I didn't care about your side rant, I responded on the actual topic.

I re-read what I wrote. You are right.

In my head the two were connected even though it was more of an afterthought and not part of the original argument. I apologize for that.

Regarding bio-weapons, assuming we will not end this civilization some other way, I do think that knowledge is a dangerous thing, but how are bio-weapons different from cryptography, 3d printing or nuclear fission. In a more practical sense, do you not think households may end up having gene editing tech in their garage, the way some are mining crypto now?

More to the point, establishment is only scared of things that undermine its power. Does that make crypto inherently a bad thing?

> do you not think households may end up having gene editing tech in their garage

Probably not, if that tech is ridiculously dangerous. We regulate a lot of dangerous things. It is a very good thing that we do.

> More to the point, establishment is only scared of things that undermine its power.

This is nonsense. This is a libertarian caricature of what "the establishment" is, and not reality.

It is possible that we have an issue with common definitions.

What do you understand by establishment?

So that's a pro? Lol

I said it in jest, but in retrospect maybe yes.