🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <430@gt-ford.gtisqr.UUCP>, kevin@gtisqr.UUCP (Kevin Bagley) writes:
>    1) They could communicate to us a cure for cancer that was
>       actually a very subtle poison that was airborn and did
>       not take affect for n years.
> 
>    2) Tell us of a new and safe energy source that is actually
>       a quark bomb. (Kills / destroys buildings etc. but does
>       not destroy atmosphere or produce radiation.)
> 
>    3) Mass hypnotism followed by mass suicide.
> 
>    4) Help me here folks. How else do you cause genocide by remote control?

Carl Sagan's not-too-bad SF novel _Contact_ alludes to this problem.
The signals we receive give detailed instructions to build a complex
machine whose construction lies within our capabilities
but whose operation we cannot fathom.

Some opposition groups raised the fear that this machine, once
built and turned on, might blow up/sterilize/poison/jam all TV
channels with "Love Boat" reruns  or otherwise destroy human
civilization.  Just as home computer users who download programs
from bull boards have toworry about Trojan Horses and viruses.

I think that in this novel's case, these fears were very
justifiable.  The machine was benign but did play a dirty old
trick (no spoilers here).

BTW, a perfectly well-intentioned set of technological messages
could end up killing us -- we could screw it up and/or leave
out some "assumed/taken for granted" safety feature.
If all our lawyers died we couldn't even sue 'em.

I'd also be very careful about anything instructions of a biological
nature (like cancer cure) -- how much can "they" know about
our body chemistry?  Half the folks over on rec.pets are trying to
convince the other half that chocolate can kill a dog.