I think it is fair to see both sides of technological advancement. For every positive use of technology there is often some negative use. I think of nuclear pow

I think it is fair to see both sides of technological advancement. For every positive use of technology there is often some negative use. I think of nuclear power vs. nuclear weapons. No one thinks we should stop investigating chemicals and diseases just because someone could use the information to create chemical weapons or biological weapons. However, we do have social and political tools to attempt to deal with these negatives, whether they be conventions or treaties. As a more recent data-point look at all of the hubbub caused by social networks and their use by opposing countries to destabilize political process. We are going to make real changes to technology to attempt to mitigate those issues. We need to think about the negative consequences of gene editing, robotics, super powerful AI, etc. not to overshadow the positive benefits but to help remind us to create the tools necessary to mitigate those negatives. If the only possible ramifications were good then we wouldn't need to be having this conversation. It reminds me of interviews with Steven Pinker and his opinion on potential negative outfall from AI research. He claims that engineers are generally good-willed and they try to do the best they can, e.g. they don't design bridges that will fall. Yet bridges fall down sometimes, occasionally quite soon after they are built. I'm glad there is some external oversight on issues that are potentially world-changing, just to have a sober second opinion.