3 ms·

What about the intended consequences? I personally would like to put on trial for crimes against humanity ever single person arguing for a delay in using this

What about the intended consequences? I personally would like to put on trial for crimes against humanity ever single person arguing for a delay in using this technology. Let them argue in court why hundreds of thousands of people (mostly young children and pregnant women) should die every year so they can pontificate about "unintended consequences" from the comfort of their armchairs. For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria and removing all human pathogen spreading mosquitos would have no direct impact on any natural ecosystem.

UncleEntity 8y ago
Speaking about young children and pregnant women... I thought the "unintended consequences" of thalidomide was common knowledge and seen as a warning against the "look before you leap" mentality you're advocating.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  The totally stupid thalidomide argument can be used to oppose anything new. It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
  - UncleEntity 8y ago
    So basically your argument is we have this wonder cure (that may not even work, who knows?) that involves modifying the building blocks of life (which we barely understand) and we should just release it into the wild because "won't somebody, please, think of the children!" Think The Simpsons did an episode on this involving gorillas and snakes or something. Oh, and anyone who thinks that it's maybe is a good idea to study this irreversible idea a bit beforehand should be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity. And the thalidomide incident lead to the total rethinking on how drugs were approved throughout the world so the fact that it was or wasn't approved by the FDA is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it was the catalyst of change that keeps people from willy-nilly releasing genetically modified insects into the wild today. As far as I can tell they are actively working on this idea with test releases in Florida (on non-native mosquitoes) so it's not like anyone is trying to kill this idea as you imply. Ok, to be fair, some people are trying to kill this idea but that hasn't stopped them from releasing genetically modified mutants into the wild.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      Is your appeal to authority really the Simpsons? Thalidomide had nothing to do with the changes in how drugs are approved. The thalidomide "problem" was solved by never testing drugs in pregant women - of course if you are pregnant and get ill then tough luck. The FDA has nothing to do with the regulation of genetically modified mosquitos as it is outside its regulatory control. Yes plenty of people are trying to kill this idea and yes these people have slowed and will probably stop this idea ever being used. I would like them to be held responsible for the millions of deaths that result.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria. People with sickle cell do. That's part of why certain genetic defects are prevalent in certain populations: survival of the fittest in circumstances where the alternative is worse. I think they have signed "right to try" into law. But there are very good reasons we want to test stuff before taking a big step. People tend to die as our way of finding out the theory is only half baked. That's how we got rounded airplane windows: by planes going down in gruesome crashes that killed everyone on board, thereby serving as a clue that there was a design flaw somewhere in our lovely new jets.
- danieltillett 8y ago
  No people with one copy of the haemoglobin mutation that causes sickle cell are just less to die of Malaria. They still get infected. Anyway this is totally irrelevant to the question of if we should continue to let people die while we sit around pontificating about unintended consequences. When the house is burning down it is not the time to talk about the unintended consequences of getting the carpet wet.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    I'm just here (on HN) to make conversation. As far as I know, my comments here are in no way causing any scientists to be held back from rushing forward with their plans to do anything at all, whether mosquito related or not.
    - danieltillett 8y ago
      LOL. You are not one of the people I hold responsible for holding back this technology. I am just expressing my extreme frustration at how something that could save millions of people is being held back because certain people are excessively cautious. I would like them held responsible for the deaths they are responsible for.

UncleEntity 8y ago

Speaking about young children and pregnant women... I thought the "unintended consequences" of thalidomide was common knowledge and seen as a warning against the "look before you leap" mentality you're advocating.

danieltillett 8y ago
The totally stupid thalidomide argument can be used to oppose anything new. It is even a more stupid argument as thalidomide wasn't stopped in the USA because of any concern about "unintended consequences", it was stopped because of the incompetence and sloth of the FDA. The FDA would have approved thalidomide with no issues, the USA just got lucky that thalidomide was used elsewhere first and so the effects were noticed before it was released in the USA.
- UncleEntity 8y ago
  So basically your argument is we have this wonder cure (that may not even work, who knows?) that involves modifying the building blocks of life (which we barely understand) and we should just release it into the wild because "won't somebody, please, think of the children!" Think The Simpsons did an episode on this involving gorillas and snakes or something. Oh, and anyone who thinks that it's maybe is a good idea to study this irreversible idea a bit beforehand should be brought up on charges of Crimes Against Humanity. And the thalidomide incident lead to the total rethinking on how drugs were approved throughout the world so the fact that it was or wasn't approved by the FDA is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, it was the catalyst of change that keeps people from willy-nilly releasing genetically modified insects into the wild today. As far as I can tell they are actively working on this idea with test releases in Florida (on non-native mosquitoes) so it's not like anyone is trying to kill this idea as you imply. Ok, to be fair, some people are trying to kill this idea but that hasn't stopped them from releasing genetically modified mutants into the wild.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    Is your appeal to authority really the Simpsons? Thalidomide had nothing to do with the changes in how drugs are approved. The thalidomide "problem" was solved by never testing drugs in pregant women - of course if you are pregnant and get ill then tough luck. The FDA has nothing to do with the regulation of genetically modified mosquitos as it is outside its regulatory control. Yes plenty of people are trying to kill this idea and yes these people have slowed and will probably stop this idea ever being used. I would like them to be held responsible for the millions of deaths that result.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

For the record people do not have a natural immunity to malaria. People with sickle cell do. That's part of why certain genetic defects are prevalent in certain populations: survival of the fittest in circumstances where the alternative is worse. I think they have signed "right to try" into law. But there are very good reasons we want to test stuff before taking a big step. People tend to die as our way of finding out the theory is only half baked. That's how we got rounded airplane windows: by planes going down in gruesome crashes that killed everyone on board, thereby serving as a clue that there was a design flaw somewhere in our lovely new jets.

danieltillett 8y ago
No people with one copy of the haemoglobin mutation that causes sickle cell are just less to die of Malaria. They still get infected. Anyway this is totally irrelevant to the question of if we should continue to let people die while we sit around pontificating about unintended consequences. When the house is burning down it is not the time to talk about the unintended consequences of getting the carpet wet.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  I'm just here (on HN) to make conversation. As far as I know, my comments here are in no way causing any scientists to be held back from rushing forward with their plans to do anything at all, whether mosquito related or not.
  - danieltillett 8y ago
    LOL. You are not one of the people I hold responsible for holding back this technology. I am just expressing my extreme frustration at how something that could save millions of people is being held back because certain people are excessively cautious. I would like them held responsible for the deaths they are responsible for.