> It's like designing new kinds of nerve gas, "quite sure" that it will only ever be in the hands of good guys who aren't going to hurt people with it. That's powerful naïveté. Once you make it, you can't control who has it and what they use it for. There's no take-backsies, that's why it should never be created in the first place.

Interesting choice of analogy, to compare something with the singular purpose to destroy biological entities, to a computing technology that enforces what code is run.

Can you not see there might be positive, non-destructive applications of the latter? Are you the type of person that argues cars shouldn't exist due to their negative impacts while ignoring all the positives?