3 ms·
The difference is that when you have a big red destroy-the-species button, "virtually no individuals", "almost no real world use" and "probably very low" and "h
by dTal 8y ago
The difference is that when you have a big red destroy-the-species button, "virtually no individuals", "almost no real world use" and "probably very low" and "handful of real world cases" just isn't good enough. It only takes one person doing this once to affect the whole world. Can you think of a single offensive technology that hasn't been used even once?
- wonderwonder 8y agoI hear what you are saying and generally agree with your points. Like most dual use technologies though, nuclear for example, their are pro's and cons. I do think that there are enough benefits to pursue the technology though such as the potential to eliminate malaria, sickle cell, Huntingtons etc. I completely agree that there are risks but I think the technology is likely simple enough that those risks exist now regardless of institutional support so we may as well seek to get the most out of it. Also I think the risk here is likely overstated, the genetically edited organisms still need to breed and populate to spread the edited gene. You cannot utilize this technology in weaponized form in something like a gas attack or wide spread targeting. If its an edited person, it would take dozens of generations to affect the general population and would likely be stopped in the mean time. So I am not really seeing the major risk.