4 ms·

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. What matters is how we respond to them. We won't be around to respond to them when the next engineere

> All of this focus on the point of origin is misplaced. What matters is how we respond to them. We won't be around to respond to them when the next engineered one is potentially much worse. This is an enormously dangerous global issue, we need to address origins.

flybrand 5y ago
There is a scenario where the origin story really matters: If the origin story implies that the vendor is dishonest, then don’t trust that same vendor to solve the problem.
skohan 5y ago
Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion. COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we're at the point where science is capable of creating such pathogens, then we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands of bad actors. That's a very different state of affairs than saying we need to be ready for a pandemic of natural origin which may occur every 100 years or so.
- EMM_386 5y ago
  > Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion. The problem here is that countries can wrap this research under the banner of "natsec" and then there can be no further discussion. I see no way around that outside of crossing our collective fingers. > COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Precisely. And this can be considered the "easy" version compared to what could potentially be created. It's a nightmare scenario, and it's far more dangerous than nuclear weapons (unless that resulted in the end of civilization / "mutually assured destruction"). It could literally wipe out the planet before we have time to respond to it. Similar in that regard I suppose. > we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands of bad actors Those would have to be some really, really bad actors if they are willing to take out the entire planet, crossing all ideological and political boundaries. I'm sure smarter minds than me are keeping an eye on this.
dTal 5y ago
I'm reminded of the king of the Swamp Castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who." It should not need saying that if millions of deaths are the result of a simple, easily avoidable mistake (or gross negligence) then that is kind of a big deal. The Titanic led to better lifeboat regulations. We need to understand our role in the origin of this disease even if only so that we can learn our lesson, whatever that may be.

flybrand 5y ago

There is a scenario where the origin story really matters: If the origin story implies that the vendor is dishonest, then don’t trust that same vendor to solve the problem.

skohan 5y ago

Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion. COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. If we're at the point where science is capable of creating such pathogens, then we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands of bad actors. That's a very different state of affairs than saying we need to be ready for a pandemic of natural origin which may occur every 100 years or so.

EMM_386 5y ago
> Yes absolutely it's incredibly relevant if world-crippling viruses are being engineered in labs, and should be a topic for public policy discussion. The problem here is that countries can wrap this research under the banner of "natsec" and then there can be no further discussion. I see no way around that outside of crossing our collective fingers. > COVID has been many times more damaging to the world than the bombs dropped at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Precisely. And this can be considered the "easy" version compared to what could potentially be created. It's a nightmare scenario, and it's far more dangerous than nuclear weapons (unless that resulted in the end of civilization / "mutually assured destruction"). It could literally wipe out the planet before we have time to respond to it. Similar in that regard I suppose. > we have to also consider the fact that this technology can make its way into the hands of bad actors Those would have to be some really, really bad actors if they are willing to take out the entire planet, crossing all ideological and political boundaries. I'm sure smarter minds than me are keeping an eye on this.

dTal 5y ago

I'm reminded of the king of the Swamp Castle from Monty Python and the Holy Grail: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who." It should not need saying that if millions of deaths are the result of a simple, easily avoidable mistake (or gross negligence) then that is kind of a big deal. The Titanic led to better lifeboat regulations. We need to understand our role in the origin of this disease even if only so that we can learn our lesson, whatever that may be.