-This is actually possible, once we have the genomes for *other* primates.
Carl Sagan mentioned that other primates have drastically different behaviour, the colobus monkeys are quite meek, while baboons are more violent and aggressive (see "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", Sagan & Margulis).
With "comparative genomics", we will not only know which genes that code for various aspects of intelligence, but for behaviour as well, what we may call "human nature" (or in case of other primates, [species name] nature).
The writer Stanislaw Lem (who suggested virtual reality and nanotechnology as early as 1965) coined the expression "Betrization" for a hypothetical process to make human beings less capable of physical aggression.
There is in theory no obstacle for germ-line gene therapy to achieve this goal, but since there must be several thousand genes involved in the development and operation of the brain, some of which have multiple functions, it will probably take another century before the functions of those genes are mapped.
I would like to ask if technological safeguards can prevent something like this from happening again ?
It may be poor taste to bring up this topic so soon after the massacre, but at least thinking about the problem gave me something constructive to do, instead of just watching the scenes on TV with helpless fury.
Apparently, suicide hijackers used civilian airliners as projectiles,
totally ignoring the loss of civilians in the aircraft and the targets.
It seems the *cockpits* are the places where safeguards would be effective.
Airports can be made safer, but there is always the risk of ground crew being recruited by hijackers for smuggling weapons past security. Nor will it be effective to place AA batteries on the roofs of every possible target.
A system with *continous* "biometric" verification of the identity of the pilot/pilots sitting at the controls is the first step.
If an unauthorised person sits down at the controls, the system should regard him as a possible suicide pilot, set the autopilot to cruise mode, and disconnect the cockpit from the controls.
It should not be possible to force the authorised pilots to steer the aircraft the final part of a collision course, even at gunpoint;
in that situation the pilot has nothing to lose by disobeying the hijackers.
If and when ground control has verified it is a false alarm, they can transmit an override code, (which is unknown to the aircrew), re-introducing manual control.
The new (not yet introduced) world standard for air traffic control is a decentralised system, based on an invention by Swedish engineer Håkan Lans, and depends on computers in every airliner, communicating in an internet-like way.
Maybe this could be a second line of defense ?
This system might be modified to regard some (potential target) zones as off-limits. If the aircraft enters an off-limit zone,
or if the traffic control system is disconnected, the aircraft should likewise enter a cruise mode, without a possibility for hijackers to manouvre the craft.
There are obvious questions about how to prevent false alarms, or technical problems, from jeopardising the aircraft during normal flights, but I assume those problems will be minor,
compared to making every airport 100% secure,
or installing static AA defenses around all buildings that terrorists may regard as targets.
Slashdot Mirror
-This is actually possible, once we have the genomes for *other* primates.
Carl Sagan mentioned that other primates have drastically different behaviour, the colobus monkeys are quite meek, while baboons are more violent and aggressive (see "Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors", Sagan & Margulis).
With "comparative genomics", we will not only know which genes that code for various aspects of intelligence, but for behaviour as well, what we may call "human nature" (or in case of other primates, [species name] nature).
The writer Stanislaw Lem (who suggested virtual reality and nanotechnology as early as 1965) coined the expression "Betrization" for a hypothetical process to make human beings less capable of physical aggression.
There is in theory no obstacle for germ-line gene therapy to achieve this goal, but since there must be several thousand genes involved in the development and operation of the brain, some of which have multiple functions, it will probably take another century before the functions of those genes are mapped.
Yours
Birger Johansson
I would like to ask if technological safeguards can prevent something like this from happening again ?
It may be poor taste to bring up this topic so soon after the massacre, but at least thinking about the problem gave me something constructive to do, instead of just watching the scenes on TV with helpless fury.
Apparently, suicide hijackers used civilian airliners as projectiles,
totally ignoring the loss of civilians in the aircraft and the targets.
It seems the *cockpits* are the places where safeguards would be effective.
Airports can be made safer, but there is always the risk of ground crew being recruited by hijackers for smuggling weapons past security. Nor will it be effective to place AA batteries on the roofs of every possible target.
A system with *continous* "biometric" verification of the identity of the pilot/pilots sitting at the controls is the first step.
If an unauthorised person sits down at the controls, the system should regard him as a possible suicide pilot, set the autopilot to cruise mode, and disconnect the cockpit from the controls.
It should not be possible to force the authorised pilots to steer the aircraft the final part of a collision course, even at gunpoint;
in that situation the pilot has nothing to lose by disobeying the hijackers.
If and when ground control has verified it is a false alarm, they can transmit an override code, (which is unknown to the aircrew), re-introducing manual control.
The new (not yet introduced) world standard for air traffic control is a decentralised system, based on an invention by Swedish engineer Håkan Lans, and depends on computers in every airliner, communicating in an internet-like way.
Maybe this could be a second line of defense ?
This system might be modified to regard some (potential target) zones as off-limits. If the aircraft enters an off-limit zone,
or if the traffic control system is disconnected, the aircraft should likewise enter a cruise mode, without a possibility for hijackers to manouvre the craft.
There are obvious questions about how to prevent false alarms, or technical problems, from jeopardising the aircraft during normal flights, but I assume those problems will be minor,
compared to making every airport 100% secure,
or installing static AA defenses around all buildings that terrorists may regard as targets.
Yours
Birger Johansson
Umeå, Sweden