> All that has resulted in is a security arms race which doesn't benefit anyone.
On the contrary, if we lack low level predators on a short feedback/evolution cycle, then the high level ones operating on a longer cycle will be more effective when the threat environment changes abruptly.
I don't buy the 'public service' argument. Even if my security is lackluster, you're not doing me a favor by breaking it. You know who does this right? Insurance companies. They'll assess risk prior to writing insurance for it, and lay out what they consider to be reasonable standards for securing a home/grocery store/bank/nuclear power station (typically in the form of discounts from a high initial premium). Insurance companies are not especially nice or generous people, but they are usually economically efficient (though I don't feel this way about health insurance - I think that's a classic case of market failure because consumers are not able to properly assess or control their risk factors, leading to a drastic information asymmetry that disproportionately benefits insurers).
On the contrary, if we lack low level predators on a short feedback/evolution cycle, then the high level ones operating on a longer cycle will be more effective when the threat environment changes abruptly.