6 ms·

Something that would rapidly spread back into their own highly dense population centres and wipe them out? For the most part world leaders aren’t this stupid.

by jf- 8y ago

Something that would rapidly spread back into their own highly dense population centres and wipe them out? For the most part world leaders aren’t this stupid. Mostly.

bicubic 8y ago
Eh. With gene drives we already have the technology to selectively target or not target particular ethnic groups. Bio weapons are amongst the top threats we pose to ourselves as a species. There’s a youtube series by a guy who made a virus to cure himself of lactose intolerance via gene therapy, that was pretty eye opening. To go from what he did to making a targeted bioweapon is not that much of a leap. https://youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY https://youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY
- jf- 8y ago
  When you release something it becomes subject to natural selection. It would evolve to target everyone. It’s still dumb.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    It's also a sort of safeguard. Pathogens that are too deadly to the organisms they infect are selected out.
    - abakker 8y ago
      Not if they are eventually deadly, like HIV. If HIV spread in a targeted way, with the level of contagion in a common cold cold it would be bad. Of course, it’s not great if you want to prevent retaliation.
PavlovsCat 8y ago
World leaders are getting more stupid before our eyes though, it's not like this tech is only available until Christmas or something. Couldn't targetting specific ethnicities seem feasible enough at some point that someone just might try it?
- jf- 8y ago
  Look, I’m no big fan of China, but why do we suddenly think they’re out to commit genocide? Let’s calm down here.
  - PavlovsCat 8y ago
    Why are you putting words into my mouth, and then ask me to calm down? I asked a question, it was a serious one, so calm down and let someone have a honest shot at answering it. I was responding to someone talking about world leaders, after all. And maybe targetting on not being an ethnicity would be possible to, but who knows? So it seems China might actually be more vulnerable to something like this, having so many Han Chinese. I have no clue with what that corresponds with genetically, if anything -- but how you get from what I said to "us" "suddenly thinking" that "China is out to commit genocide" you'd have to explain, the opposite seems much more "obvious" -- the most obvious thing to engage with would be with what I actually wrote though. The overarching point here, to me, is maybe opening a pandora's box for a few benefits, most of which we could mostly have with good diet and being nice to each other, and possibly giant or species-ending drawbacks, might be a bad idea, and how "nobody would be so stupid because it would be indiscriminate" doesn't strike me as very convincing. Not even if it was necessarily indiscriminate I would be convinced by that, but let's just take that bit for granted. Why would it be indiscriminate though? Serious question, serious answers please.
    - jf- 8y ago
      Someone had their coffee today.
      - PavlovsCat 8y ago
        I'm not allowed to have coffee, on account of I fell into the cauldron as a child. kicks rocks
  - gbear605 8y ago
    They are committing genocide right now.
RRWagner 8y ago
And what happens once discarded gene-editing technology is available to 14-year olds? There are few technologies in history, including nuclear, that haven't eventually been available to curious teenagers.
- jf- 8y ago
  > There are few technologies in history, including nuclear, that haven't eventually been available to curious teenagers. ...because the world has been ended by kids making their own nuclear weapons? What?
  - aqme28 8y ago
    I think he's talking about this incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn Backyard nuclear devices don't end the world, but can still cause a lot of harm. Superdiseases made in a garage might one day have civilization-crippling consequences.
- bastawhiz 8y ago
  We should never avoid discovering something out of the fear that it could be misused. We have an imperative to learn all that is learnable and then use the findings to ensure safety and develop countermeasures. Otherwise, someone else will discover it and we will be unprepared. Top scientists would struggle to create a super disease today. Worrying that a kid will do it when the technology is commoditized is putting the cart well before the horse.
  - marviel 8y ago
    Would you stand by your initial statement provided the discovery was something which was certain to eliminate all life?
    - Nasrudith 8y ago
      Well the thing is you never know for certain if it really will eliminate all life until it does. During the Manhattan project there were concerns that the unprecedented temperatures might be enough to start runaway fusion reactions and ignite the atmosphere.
johnchristopher 8y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPBzj90Su8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPBzj90Su8A They irradiated their own planet ?

by jf- 8y ago

Something that would rapidly spread back into their own highly dense population centres and wipe them out? For the most part world leaders aren’t this stupid. Mostly.

bicubic 8y ago

Eh. With gene drives we already have the technology to selectively target or not target particular ethnic groups. Bio weapons are amongst the top threats we pose to ourselves as a species. There’s a youtube series by a guy who made a virus to cure himself of lactose intolerance via gene therapy, that was pretty eye opening. To go from what he did to making a targeted bioweapon is not that much of a leap. https://youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY https://youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY

jf- 8y ago
When you release something it becomes subject to natural selection. It would evolve to target everyone. It’s still dumb.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  It's also a sort of safeguard. Pathogens that are too deadly to the organisms they infect are selected out.
  - abakker 8y ago
    Not if they are eventually deadly, like HIV. If HIV spread in a targeted way, with the level of contagion in a common cold cold it would be bad. Of course, it’s not great if you want to prevent retaliation.

PavlovsCat 8y ago

World leaders are getting more stupid before our eyes though, it's not like this tech is only available until Christmas or something. Couldn't targetting specific ethnicities seem feasible enough at some point that someone just might try it?

jf- 8y ago
Look, I’m no big fan of China, but why do we suddenly think they’re out to commit genocide? Let’s calm down here.
- PavlovsCat 8y ago
  Why are you putting words into my mouth, and then ask me to calm down? I asked a question, it was a serious one, so calm down and let someone have a honest shot at answering it. I was responding to someone talking about world leaders, after all. And maybe targetting on not being an ethnicity would be possible to, but who knows? So it seems China might actually be more vulnerable to something like this, having so many Han Chinese. I have no clue with what that corresponds with genetically, if anything -- but how you get from what I said to "us" "suddenly thinking" that "China is out to commit genocide" you'd have to explain, the opposite seems much more "obvious" -- the most obvious thing to engage with would be with what I actually wrote though. The overarching point here, to me, is maybe opening a pandora's box for a few benefits, most of which we could mostly have with good diet and being nice to each other, and possibly giant or species-ending drawbacks, might be a bad idea, and how "nobody would be so stupid because it would be indiscriminate" doesn't strike me as very convincing. Not even if it was necessarily indiscriminate I would be convinced by that, but let's just take that bit for granted. Why would it be indiscriminate though? Serious question, serious answers please.
  - jf- 8y ago
    Someone had their coffee today.
    - PavlovsCat 8y ago
      I'm not allowed to have coffee, on account of I fell into the cauldron as a child. kicks rocks
- gbear605 8y ago
  They are committing genocide right now.

RRWagner 8y ago

And what happens once discarded gene-editing technology is available to 14-year olds? There are few technologies in history, including nuclear, that haven't eventually been available to curious teenagers.

jf- 8y ago
> There are few technologies in history, including nuclear, that haven't eventually been available to curious teenagers. ...because the world has been ended by kids making their own nuclear weapons? What?
- aqme28 8y ago
  I think he's talking about this incident https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn Backyard nuclear devices don't end the world, but can still cause a lot of harm. Superdiseases made in a garage might one day have civilization-crippling consequences.
bastawhiz 8y ago
We should never avoid discovering something out of the fear that it could be misused. We have an imperative to learn all that is learnable and then use the findings to ensure safety and develop countermeasures. Otherwise, someone else will discover it and we will be unprepared. Top scientists would struggle to create a super disease today. Worrying that a kid will do it when the technology is commoditized is putting the cart well before the horse.
- marviel 8y ago
  Would you stand by your initial statement provided the discovery was something which was certain to eliminate all life?
  - Nasrudith 8y ago
    Well the thing is you never know for certain if it really will eliminate all life until it does. During the Manhattan project there were concerns that the unprecedented temperatures might be enough to start runaway fusion reactions and ignite the atmosphere.

johnchristopher 8y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPBzj90Su8A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPBzj90Su8A They irradiated their own planet ?