Dual use technology, positives and negatives

There’s a big moral dilemma when you’re interested in inventing solutions which benefit mankind. If you make something which has peaceful intentions and has the function to greatly benefit civilians or society. You run the risk of it being used for Military purposes.

You are then faced with the decision, do I want to continue down this route and release something which can be potentially weaponised?

This technology is commonly known as Dual Use Technology.

What exactly is Dual Use Technology?

Dual use goods are products and technologies normally used for civilian purposes but which may have military applications.

SOURCE : Wikipedia – Dual Use Technology

What is the problem?

If I could sum it all up in one word, it would be people. Humanity is the problem. War is one of the biggest problems going around. It’s also one of the largest money makers. Until people learn change. We will always have this problem. Not everyone in the world is good, not everyone in the world is bad. Until the world has good intentions and aims to seek peace however, we will always be at risk of another nutjob causing war or hurting people.

What is the safest way to guard against Dual Use Technology?

The simplest way is either never to make it, never release it, never disclose it or patent it.

After all, once there’s awareness and it’s in the public domain. The information becomes accessible to other people. Your technology is then liable to be confiscated, stolen or duplicated.

There’s no point putting a patent on your Technology. A patent is nothing more than something which allows you to sue others using your invention. A patent does not stop someone building their own product for their own. It simply gives you proof that they stole your invention.

After all. To patent something, you have to legally release the information into the Public domain. It’s then accessible to anyone and everyone.

China are a common nation that have been known to “knock-off” technology and products as their own versions and seem to regularly bypass any legal ramifications.

If you live in the UK / USA, or most parts of the world your Technology can be confiscated if it’s considered a threat to national security. Or in general if you invent something which the Government feels can be a benefit to them, you can damn be sure that it would be confiscated.

Have you heard of the Wassenger Agreement? Take a look at the list of items and their sub-categories that are monitored as part of dual use technology. You can see how broad the range is that allows technology to be confiscated if it fits in line with military objectives.

It’s even worse in places like the USA. They have the “Invention Secrecy Act“. Basically it’s a generic catch all that allows them to confiscate anything which falls in line with military objectives or threats to national security as it’s worded. One of the heaviest there is cryptography. If you invent or design something, you can guarantee a knock at your door. Especially if it involves new levels of encryption, breaking encryption.

Although it has now been declassified, the ECHELON project was a massive surveillance program initially design for military use. Now it’s thought of more as industrial espionage, after all. Why worry about stealing technology when you can just spy on people, then patent it before they do. You hold the rights to it due to first patent, and you already know how it works due to spying. This is why the Military are so shit-hot when it comes to Cyrptography and classifying it as a “national secret”.

Most companies to prevent espionage are using Cryptography. Imagine if the Military couldn’t hack into these communications. You could have sensitive information being transmitted (a bit OTT, but nuclear launch codes for example). Or normal information (something like a solar cell that’s 90% efficient). Both of these would be situations where the military would want to make sure they can break into and intercept communications. One good and one bad.

Is Dual Use Technology bad?

No, until it’s used for bad purposes. One of the most common known dual use technologies was GPS (Global Positioning System). This system is used for targeting missiles, but was also used for saving lives. A commonly known modern application of this was the What3Words design. It utilises GPS, it has a database of words. However your mobile phone needs to find out your current location to link it to the database. This is done through GPS. Without the release of this dual use technology we would have never benefitted from it.

What about me, do I invent or study?

Yes, every project I build I think of the consequences or benefits of the Technology and how it has the potential to be weaponised, or how it could be used for military purposes. When I invent and study, I only have one goal in mind to benefit mankind and increase my knowledge. Once I have the information, I plan on destroying inventions. I’d rather the information i’ve learned stays in my head so it can never be obtained.

You sound like a conspiracy theorist/anti-government

To some degree. I am. I don’t trust the government’s of any nation. They always act in their own interests, or in the interests of war. Just because you’re not making “military” weapons, doesn’t mean it can’t be used. Actions always have consequences

I just happen to be a person who sees both the positives and negatives to everything. I don’t have a clouded vision.

You have to weigh up the positives and negatives. Then determine if the information can be released, or if it would be a greater benefit to stay classified.

What are my personal goals?

For me. Setup a Business where I can make/sell products which can’t be utilised for any negative reasons so I can focus full time on my projects. Then focus on my projects. Study and learn. For me it’s about proof of concept. I have no interest in using the Technologies. Once I have my proof of concept. Destroy them.

Spinal Chord Repair

Is it possible to repair damage to the Spinal Chord in the human body in order to reverse paralysis (or partially recover from it) using a conductive implant?

This isn’t a detailed article. It’s just one of those weird thoughts I have. Every now and then I just have random thoughts, and I want to jot them down for further research.

Maybe it helps spur the idea on for someone else. Or gives them a new line of thinking

I’m not a person in the Medical/Science sectors, I just have an interest in it. So my research can only go so far, I have to fund them myself. I recently had this thought, if it’s possible to carry out a Spinal chord repair using a conductive implant.

After all, the human body is nothing more than a Machine. Just very very complex.

In it’s simplest form however, everything is just Chemical 1’s and 0’s and conducted Electrically through the spine to send the signals.

If the spinal chord is severed then the person essentially becomes paralysed.

Now. Here’s the doozy.

Modern medicine attempts to restore paralysis by fixing the Spinal chord. Many people are giving up that thought process, simply because we don’t currently have the technology to carry out repairs that small on a complex system

My method (or thought process). Is to simplify this.

I’m not focussing on reattaching the chord through surgery. More creating an artifical bypass using an implant.

The human body is a fantastic ability to recover and heal from unbelievable injuries. The method I’m thinking along the lines of instead of reattaching the spinal chord through surgery. Why not create an artificial skin/membrane or device that has a conductive element inside of it? (it doesn’t need to be big, just enough to carry the electrical charge).

This is then bonded directly to the spine and maybe tested/induced using an electrical charge between the “dead points” of the body. A form of external acupuncture

This is all theoretical to me, but it’s something I’m going to be looking at further. Or at least, I want to make a note here for future use to remind myself of my original thought pattern

I know there’s potential side effects like more damage, or infections. There’s risk to everything. I’m mainly trying to think of a way to solve a problem.

The Human Spinal chord has two pathways (image from wikipedia).

Going by the names, I’m assuming Motor pathways are what transmit the signals from the brain, and the Sensory pathways are what give the feedback


The Human Spinal Chord

Pathways of the Human Spinal Chord



My proposition is that these pathways are severed during spinal chord damage. I’m wondering if small implants can be built nearby into it and then using a form of Acupuncture to carry the signals directly into the nerve centres

This is why one of my project ideas was Mesh Mapping the entire nerve system. Can the spinal chord signal be replicated external that someone can wear something. Is it possible to amplify, or transfer the signal directly to the limb affected?

Again. I’m not an expert in any field of Science. So please forgive me if your first thought with this post is “that’s not possible”. Normally I write these posts, and find out that other people are already using this kind of Technology or have a similar working theory.

I don’t tend to search them until after I write the posts, but maybe it helps give a new thought pattern.

The purpose of me writing this post, is to give myself an idea, and potentially give a new line of thought to people who work in this sector. It might help develop new methods of restoration for people

I view the human body as nothing more than a machine. The spinal chord is the Electrical wiring that in it’s raw basic form carries “power and signal”, to the other Electrical components.

How do you fix those Electrical components? You replace or repair the wire to allow it to carry out it’s job again.

Even if 1 person just believes this thought pattern, it may help get the message out there.

You don’t need to repair the spinal chord itself, you just need to get the signal where it needs to go.


Black Holes and Spaghettification

Black Holes are always a common discussion point in the laws of Physics, and Science. This isn’t really meant to form a Science debate, regarding the laws of physics. Or anything like that. It’s just my own thoughts.

One suspected hypothesisis is that if you fell into a Black Hole, you would be Spaghettified. As in, you would be stretched out, and the person on the entrance, would never actually see you die. Or disappear due to distortion in Space Time with the accretion disc and the gravitational forces at the entrances.

Now, here’s my theory.

I’m a firm believer, that Black Holes are really entrances to another Universe, and that White Holes are really the exits from that Black Hole.

Where does Spaghettification come into this?

Now, most people have probably heard of Wormholes. They’re sort of known as tunnels to another dimension/universe/point of space

Here’s the WHAT IF in my theory

What if, Spaghettification doesn’t actually happen for someone falling into a Blackhole?

What if actually happens, is that you’re really entering a wormhole, and because you’re being transported to another point in Space so quickly, the distortion around the entrance to the wormhole can make it look like you’re being Spaghettified.

Think of a Camera, if you take a photo of someone using Sparklers, or Cars with lights on driving past you at a really slow shutter speed (1/4 for example) what happens to the image?

The images form one continuous trail from the source, so it appears that it’s one really long continous trail.

Now, think of a Black Hole in the same situation.

Gravity distorts space and time to insane levels at the eye of a Black Hole. So any object falling into it, would appear to be motionless.

In this situation, the eye of the black hole is the “shutter”, and the space/time distortion from Gravity is the “shutter speed”.

What if, when you enter a Black Hole. You’re not actually squashed? What if you’re just sucked in from the immense gravity, and shot out through a worm hole to another point in space-time.

The distortion of the gravity will make it seem like you’re stretched out. When in reality, you’re somewhere different entirely.

There’s plenty of things to debunk it. Gravity is so strong that things catch fire on the accretion disk. However, no one has ever fell into a Black-Hole or intentionally launched something into one. So we only have Science to go off.

There’s constantly theories related to Black Holes. Two of the most common ones to date (at the time of this post). Are that Black Holes are remnants from Former Universes, and that particles recently detected at Black Holes either prove the existence of alternate universe. Or further confirm the Quantum Entanglement theory.

This of course, is just my theory. It was something that came across my mind a long time ago. I just wanted to share it