DARPA may have saved Big Tech from solo bioterrorist attacks

This appears like very good news from CBS News:

Military programs aiming to end pandemics forever

When the DARPA-initiated antivirus microchip is fully developed with a library of all natural and synthetic pathogens known to Western authorities it will probably eliminate the risk that a culturally conservative solo microbiologist will try to release a virus in Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Seattle/Bellevue in an attempt to kill the most talented engineers working for the libertine woke Big Tech surveillance regime.

Big Tech will demand that all its highly talented scientists and engineers get chipped. Their blood can then be cleansed by a dialysis machine before a pathogen kills them.

A solo microbiologist will most likely not have the resources to either create a synthetic pathogen or discover a lethal natural virus that is unknown to Western authorities. The virosphere is enormous, so a bioterrorist may through sheer luck create or discover a new pathogen that authorities in the West are not aware of, but the chance of that happening is small.

In five to ten years one can assume that an evil but instrumentally rational solo microbiologist will not bother with trying to conduct a bioterrorist attack, because it’s pointless after the US in 2025 or 2030 get the anti-virus microchip completely functional with a library making it possible to detect all synthetic and natural viruses known to Western scientists.

I’m personally very relieved that it will soon be technically impossible for a solo microbiologist to kill talented Big Tech engineers, because the drawback of being a red teamer or a Cassandra/Jeremiah warning about the risk of bioterrorism against Big Tech is that warnings in this case may also be interpreted as being subtle threats (if you have a suspicious mind which many naturally have in our Byzantine environment). But now that bioterrorism, committed by a solo microbiologist, is soon virtually pointless, because of the new microchip, there will practically be no need for a red teamer like me to remind people about this particular danger since the risk will disappear almost completely in 5-10 years, maybe earlier.

One risk remains however: non-Western (rogue factions) within the intelligence agencies of authoritarian regimes will try to acquire one of these microchips and its virus library to see what kind of “zero day” synthetic pathogen they need to create in order to destroy their most powerful enemy: ultra-liberal Big Tech.

Drug cartels and large state-sponsored proxy forces like Hezbollah will also have the resources and methods needed to (brutally) acquire one or more of the fully developed anti-virus microchips when they are mass produced, especially if these chips are mandatory for everyone inside the perimeters of Silicon Valley, Los Angeles and Seattle/Bellevue.

Some countries (secretly) rely on bioweapons as a “poor man’s nuclear deterrence”. They are now scared that the US have found a way to neutralize bio-attacks in the near future. You can therefore take it for granted that these countries (or rogue factions within them) will try to hack US research centers that develop anti-virus microchips.

The risk of triggering a nuclear war deters China and Russia from using bioweapons against the US. Non-nuclear authoritarian states in 2025 or 2030 are more likely to release a pathogen if they are able to develop a “zero day” synthetic virus. They may 1) give it to domestic ultra-conservative terrorists in America, 2) teach militant activists in the West how to design it, or 3) plant evidence after a bio-attack, leading the FBI to believe that the perpetrator is just a solo rightwing microbiologist who got “lucky” when creating a new synthetic virus unknown to Western scientists.

The investigation after the anthrax attack in 2001 proves how difficult it can be to determine who is responsible for a biological attack. ProPublica and PBS Frontline:

New Evidence Adds Doubt to FBI’s Case Against Anthrax Suspect

When the anti-virus chip is fully developed and deployed in the Big Tech community, in 2025 or earlier, the risk posed by a conservative anti-surveillance microbiologist working alone will basically disappear. But this might pressure a rightwing microbiologist to release a pathogen today, before losing the capability to attack Big Tech. If a culturally conservative bioterrorist is strategically smart he will realize however that one or two attacks the next five years will not destroy Big Tech unless the virus is very contagious and highly lethal. It’s therefore pointless to engage in bioterrorism against Big Tech if the virus isn’t truly devastating. But creating an almost “apocalyptical” virus is extremely difficult, maybe impossible.

Since the window of opportunity for a solo bioterrorist is now reduced to only 5-10 years, because of the new anti-virus chip under development, it’s unlikely that an instrumentally rational solo microbiologist will attack Big Tech, presupposing of course that he thinks realistically about the slim chance of winning the culture and surveillance war by using the brute destructive force of a bioweapon with “only” a fatality rate of maybe 10-30%.

Ultra-conservative zealots are not known for being rational and realistic, unfortunately. So maybe a rightwing solo microbiologist will release a relatively lethal virus (for symbolic reasons) even when it has no chance of destroying Big Tech. Such idiocy is always a possibility in hyper-polarized societies, but it’s not an existential threat to Big Tech.

Only a rightwing multi-millionaire in the West may perhaps have the resources to build a secret biolab that can maybe have a slight chance of outcompeting Pentagon’s virus library. But (almost) no instrumentally rational business leader will try to recruit a morally insane bioweapon engineer when knowing that the fanatical candidate might be an FBI undercover agent.

The main risk that Big Tech has to deal with after 2025 or 2030 is the bioweapon capabilities of drug cartels, large state-sponsored proxy warfare organizations, and (rogue factions within) non-nuclear authoritarian regimes.

But the invention of anti-virus microchips is good news because it means that bioterrorism will most likely not be a method used by well-informed and relatively rational conservative idealists despite them being morally blinded because of disgust triggered when they are exposed to the decadent pop culture which libertine and woke Big Tech has created today.

To summarize things a bit:

It’s very unlikely that an evil solo microbiologist will be able to invent or discover an unknown asymptomatic and sufficiently contagious virus that has a fatality rate over 70-90%. Morally insane bioterrorism is therefore no longer instrumentally rational, in the long run, because of the new highly effective anti-virus microchip that’s coming in 2025 or maybe earlier. Since terrorism is usually defined as non-state actors killing innocent civilians for idealistic reasons one can say that the instrumentally rational version of conservative anti-surveillance solo bioterrorism is probably not a threat to Big Tech cities.

But anti-virus microchips constitute one more significant factor that seem to change the balance of power in favor of American coastal states in today’s fragmented Cold War 2. This development may increase the risk of biological warfare against Big Tech in the West. Maybe proxy forces like Hezbollah or a rogue faction within a non-liberal state will use lethal viruses in a shadow war. But that is a Cold War 2 matter. It’s just a continuation of the old arms race between states. So it can be studied like any other potential war between states, in the same way that political scientists debate the risk of nuclear war, as seen in this lecture given by John Mearsheimer (where 0:48:51 – 0:52:00 & 1:12:27 are the most interesting segments of the video):

Theory & Practice of Security Conference | Keynote: Dr. John Mearsheimer

Finally it’s a possibility that Big Tech will be attacked by organized crime. But if drug cartels use a bioweapon to stop Big Tech drone and IoT surveillance (in a cashless society) the motive will be money, not ideology or religion. Strictly speaking, it’s therefore not terrorism but a virological crime threatening the national security of America and other Western countries.

Virological crimes and biological warfare are on a different level than (domestic) solo bioterrorism. The latter is now basically out of the picture, since only a strategically dumb and politically uninformed militant activist will use it (for symbolic reasons), but without any significant effect. We therefore have one less danger to worry about in the war between cultural conservatives and libertine woke Big Tech if rogue solo microbiologists are 1) instrumentally rational, 2) aware of the new anti-virus microchip, and have 3) reflected upon the impact that this amazing invention will have on the future of solo bioterrorism, probably making the latter an ineffective tactic against Big Tech.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s