What is the most dangerous technology?

memes

>>56489110
Beat me to it

memes

>>56489099
mr bones' rollercoaster

>>56489110
>>56489128
https://twitter.com/Nightline/status/773559078069174272

>>56489099
nuclear bombs or some shit

Headphone cable splitter

infectious virus, long latent period

The wheel

File: 160902140718-samsung-burnt-smartphone-1024x576.jpg (121KB, 1024x576px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 1024x576px

samsung galaxy s7

>>56489176
To be serious for a moment, nukes are pretty dangerous, but ultimately not world ending unless we really go for armageddon.

Bioweapons are more likely to wipe out humanity by mutating out of hand I think.

The botnet

>>56489099
life

>>56489099
Carbon separating enzymes

>>56489434
>bluefag
They deserved it honestly

Fire

>>56489099
The Internet, just as Huxley predicted...

man

File: rock06.jpg (217KB, 800x578px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 800x578px

>>56489099
Rocks are the most dangerous technology in existence.
Without rock man would not have made the first weapon.
Without rock man would have not been able to mine for minerals.
Without rock man would have not developed society.
Without rock man would have not developed computers.
Without rock man would have not developed nuclear weapons.
Without rock man would the main would have not made 4chan.
Without rock man would nothing.

>>56489703
>Bioweapons are more likely to wipe out humanity by mutating out of hand I think.
Not that dangerous and not technology.

>>56490032
>it isn't technology if it doesn't run on electricity

>>56489099
Complex A.I.

>>56489099
>
That which is also the most beneficial:
Psychology

>>56490026
without rock the earth wouldn't have developed in general, we'd be a ball of ice or a gas planet

also sticks are pretty ok weapons in place of rocks

>>56490032
>biologically engineered weapons are not technology

>>56489099
AI

>>56489099
>most dangerous technology

Things that humanity hasn't evolved sufficiently (yet) to imagine or comprehend.

We haven't developed it far enough at this point, but we're on track with anti-matter. I'd call that a competitor, especially once it matures for a decade or three more.

>>56489145
You so old-school m8y m8 :D

File: FizzBuzz.webm (1MB, 1532x716px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1532x716px

>>56489099
How does one blankpost nowadays?
None of the old methods I know work

File: gutenberg_what_have_you_created_you_monster.jpg (58KB, 473x315px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 473x315px

>>56489099
And the internet, its spiritual successor.

>>56490026
A rock big enough would destroy the planet.

>>56489099
Very Very big rocks

3.5mm headphones

>>56492479
Tim Cock pls

>>56492479
Agree.
I saw people bleeding to death because of how pointy jacks are

>>56490032
>Not that dangerous
>not technology
>Biotechnology that is pioneered to specifically wipe out the human race one DNA strand at a time is neither technology nor dangerous
wew lad

>>56490026
Can God make a stone so heavy even he can't lift it? Oops, looks like the rock killed God.

File: d8acb49447e841fa5e9f50d13cce4379.jpg (90KB, 736x552px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 736x552px

>>56490026
>rocucks gonna cuck
Stick better.
Better splinterface.
Free-logbre, grow your own, branch off.
Can use to get anything, blackberry, apple, pea-seeds, even root.

>>56489099
Scads systems. The lack of security in most scads systems I should say.

I think you should specify what you mean by dangerous. Guns or even nuclear weapons are neither dangerous because they're not going to kill anyone on their own. They're lethal but not dangerous. Dangerous is something that's both lethal and uncontrollable.

>>56492670
Human beings.

File: 1297944796329.png (135KB, 1032x1023px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1032x1023px

>>56492941
Wow
Deep

File: nano_hazard.jpg (79KB, 866x305px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 866x305px

>>56489099
I would say in the near term it would likely be nano-technology.

It offers many obvious benefits that can have quick and financially significant impacts, so it is setting up for high speed adoption and wide dependency use, it already in more things then you realize.

However many of the negative aspects, like the huge infrastructure costs and health/environmental impacts are largely ignored publicly.

Like many now banned technologies through out history we will demand it become part of every aspect of our lives only to later find it hurts us deeply in the coming decades. However given the speed and scales which we now operate the fallout will likely be one of the biggest in history.

For refers asbestos was actually one of the fist wide scale nano-technologies before the that term was really used, and we are still cleaning up that huge mess that killed more then we care to admit. This will be far worse.

The irony is that if we used this responsibly, rather then applying it to everything like some magic powered then we could likely get many of the benefits without many of the negative costs, but it would limit the scale and money made and take much longer to do. And historically we never do things that way, thus it becomes a time bomb.

>>56489099
Grey goo