I will be lost in the cacophony of answers, but one area of interest and fear for me was neurobiology. Specifically, studying human neurobiology. Imagine if one day someone could figure out how your brain works - what is perception, what is emotion, what is thought, what is learning, and what is memory. Imagine they could explain it in biomolecular terms, how electromagnetic fields from neurons combined with neurotransmitters to cause reactions. X set will induce violent rage, block Y while stimulating Z will create passivity, do process P and you can implant false memories of pattern T. Once a scientist understands how to manipulate these types of things, well... watch any mind-BLEEP movie like Videodrome or even Total Recall - you know the ones I'm talking about, where they leaving you asking "was it really happening to the character in the film, or was it all in the characters head?"

I do have a bias. My sister is schizophrenic, my other sister suffers depression. I believe chronic depression or manic depression is common in my family. I have experienced both depression and manic episodes. I ponder things like perception and reality, and have drunk once to the black-out stage to try to understand what that loss of control and perception is like. I often delve into my own personal philosophical corners about what being human is and what existence is (both in a religious - Buddhist/Shinto - and nonreligious - Zen - manner; disclaimer: I am an atheist). Naturally, research into this area fascinates me. We've seen biology, chemistry, and physics explode - and the advances in neurobiology and psychology are taking great leaps now.

I guess in the end, most of these topics are reflections of our own fears. I see many of the topics raised being "what makes me feel powerless/helpless/lacking control". For me, it is losing who I am - either by accident (such as the traumatic brain injuries that can cause personality disorders or destroy your ability to form long-term memories... imagine living in a perpetual now where new encounters are not encoded for later recall!) or manipulation (a process is discovered that can manipulate mood or memories).

If technological advancement leads to greater and greater destructive powers, and destructive powers are much more easy to develop and implement than constructive powers, then how to do explain the human population explosion? It seems to me that the constructive sciences have far outstripped the destructive ones - at least, so far.

I think destructive power is asymptotic, meaning that you can approach 100% destructiveness but never quite reach it. Remember, human populations have been pushed towards extremely low numbers in the past and we have continued to thrive as a species. In part, this is due to our adaptability as a species. In fact, I would argue that science has made us more resilient to seasonal variations and natural afflictions, but is also making us less resilient to rapid climate change and virulent strains that target monocrops or humans directly. However, even if a disaster strikes, I think there will be some humans who will survive - the question is would they thrive, or would we die off as a new dominant species out competes us.

Wasn't this the reason why the mutant bird flu was developed? The goal was to create a strain to understand the biomolecular aspects of infection. If you can engineer a more virulent stain and analyze the differences, see how and where it interacts to the cells, the more likely you are to construct a binding agent to its receptor sites that will negate the infectious nature of the disease. True, you have the potential to release a nasty superbug if it gets weaponized - but if you assume that is the only eventual outcome, wouldn't it be just to let humanity be wiped out since they are such an amoral species? (I speak hypothetically, and I am not advocating bio-terrorism in any way - in fact, I don't even advocate using the bio-terrorist in a game of Pandemic, as it ruins the awesome cooperative nature of the game.)

After reading your comment, I can only think of the anime Akira (never got to read the Manga) - for sometimes it is in ignorance that we misuse our knowledge.

Unless said Death Ray can be narrowly focused on a pinpoint target to attack cancer cells in a body, thus eliminating the cancer from the patient...

No so fearful of grey goo (nanobots) as much as nano-particles that are starting to be used more often. After all, we once went around spraying DDT on our kids during picnics because it was so safe, and the government reversed their view on DES and let it be used for menopause... then to treat pregnant women... then in our chickens... then in out beef cattle before eventually banning it outright - after all, it was perfectly safe despite each test animal having disastrous reproductive tests. (Animals do not equal humans, even if every model species has negative results we still cannot say it would harm humans, so it must be safe! - Read Toxic Bodies by N Langston if you want a real eye opening tale about endocrine disruptors.)

Yeah, I can admit that a 4 year old can be pretty terrifying... but based on the article the TSA only worsened the assault. (Sorry, just trying to inject a little W C Fields styled humor into a not very funny subject.)

If I understand your argument, numbers are intuitive because multiple number systems with differing bases have arisen over time. I think this would play into the concept of numbers not being intuitive. I have 10 apples, you give me 1 apple, I have 11 apples. How many apples do you picture me having? Most modern people will picture {A A A A A A A A A A A} sitting before me. I computer would have the picture {A A A} sitting before me. A base 20 system would picture {A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A} before me.

I will concede that a when dealing with a set of counting numbers (consisting of the union of natural numbers and some fractional values, and possibly even integers once a more abstract system of commerce with debt is established) could be considered intuitive. However, the complex number set includes a real number component plus an imaginary component (the square root of -1), which is something that often unused in most people's lives and seems utterly unintuitive. Many irrational numbers are also unintuitive, as are extremely large and small numbers. Perhaps our differing opinion comes from viewing the term 'number' as different number sets?

To be honest, I can understand why people find it incredulous that certain concepts are not intuitive. For example, they have shown that children in Africa who grew up making toys out of spare bits of wire have an "intuitive" grasp towards CAD design. To this child, building wire frame models seems natural, but to many other children who did not have the same education in building physical wire frame models do not have the same grasp of the concept and definitely would not find it intuitive.

I admit that I too have my own biases in these matters, for I have grown up in the USA and have been exposed to certain things. For example, there are certain human rights that I consider "intuitive" in nature, but a person from a collectivist culture would not find "intuitive" (and vice verse). To me this indicates that some of these areas are not intuitive but learned constructs. As such, I regard things labeled as "intuitive" with a bit of skepticism.

I think the terrorists have gotten more then they have lost. We live in fear, giving up our rights and freedoms in order to gain the illusion of "security". Then again, this is a police state's wet dream - a passive, docile, and accepting population who never question. (Meaning population as a whole, we know there are plenty of individuals and small organizations that do question the state.)

I was going to say that any other person trying to pat down a 4 year old would be considered a child molester...