Overall, the benefits of achieving a space elevator clearly outweigh the risks.  But apart from the risk that it might not succeed because of whatever unforeseen engineering problems, what risks and potential "evils" will we introduce into the world when it is operational?  Don't we have a responsibility to try to find solutions to these risks?
Obvious ones, would be the risks associated with military involvement in the first elevator.  Military payloads might introduce surveillence technologies that could be misused in Orwellian ways.  Military offensive space weapons might be payload;  the weapons directly, and any potential arms race they might spark, would be grave cause for concern.  Our elevator will be fragile, and any sufficiently resourceful entity might pre-emptively destroy it, if the entity's security concerns aren't addressed.  If space elevators are widespread, one strategic strike might destroy worldwide infrastructure for a while.  Security in orbit is a concern too.  A large bomb made of nothing but bb's or small bearings might ruin most earth orbital paths, or at least require  significant cost increases in "armoring" satellites.  The point here, isn't that we might carry the bomb as payload; it could be launched from a rocket, it's that offensive capabilities in space greatly exceed defensive counter-measures, and how the space elevator is used might trigger the use of some of these capabilities.  Some form of personell tracking/monitoring will likely be required if we start accepting people as cargo in later elevators.  We don't need terror cells operating in space, using resources there to construct nano-assemblers, AI capable computer heuristics, and "death-rays" in general.  This applies to potential government space-labs too.  We need to think really big here.  I don't think MAD would apply in a space war setting; I think it might be winnable.  Even at the level of an individual; one person with a tiny asteroid, spare time, 21st century engineering blueprints, a steam rocket and a small solar-oven could probably cause a lot of damage.  If this small current SE community now is blindly proceeding in enabling this incredible engineering feat, we are ultimately responsible for whatever subsequently occurs as a result of those who book payloads.

Never trusted "m", with their secret handshakes and everything.  I don't think the ship analogy is perfect, though.  If Columbus had discovered a people with more concentrated and diverse animal agriculture, and a higher population density, then he would have brought back plagues to Europe.  I guess he still could have had no way of knowing...
I think my use of the term "responsible" is inaccurate; esp. in a legal sense.  After the 1st successful elevator is demonstrated, several members of national agencies, corporations, and even some individuals could probably copycat.  I just think, if we establish a good precedent with the 1st elevator, maybe others will copycat our shipping behaviour along with our engineering.  Is that a little niave?

It depends on the risks you are talking about.  Part of the reason for this forum is to serve as a place to discuss risks associated with an SE system.

Note that the risks associated with evil are probably out of scope for a number of reasons.



Whoa, stop right there cowboy.  Yes, you might incur a karmic debt for shipping technology that can be used in Orwellian ways but

* Your terminology is loaded with heavy buzzwords.  Orwellian sets off a lot of buzzers and alarms in people's minds that cloud the discussion.

* The military is a potential customer. The government is a potential customer.  They might well be THE heavy end-user for a time.  This has happened before, and is not a bad thing.



KSC is a fragile place as well.  One nuclear bomb, and it need not be a huge one, could put it out of business forever.  I suspect this is a non-issue if the owner of the SE system is a private company and makes it clear that it's open for all users.  If it's a State owned property, same result, for different reasons.



I reject that notion - it's foolish to think that if someone uses a tool that I've made to do heinous deeds, it's all my fault.

At the same time, yes, sure, the operators of a given system will have a fiduciary, legal, and yes, ethical obligation as to it's use.