4 ms·

And if we did all of that, how much would it decrease our future risk of zoonotic spillover?

by ethbr0 4y ago

b112 4y ago
The comment you are responding to, talks about alleged malfeasance, and morally bankrupt acts. Your response is, oh well? In terms of spillover, there is zero guarantee it would happen naturally. For any virus, it could, it may, and for some it has. But for any specific virus, it is absolutely not guaranteed. And purposefully training for human compatibility in a lab, clearly makes that maybe, a certainty, and if insufficient precautions are taken, that is a crime against humanity. This whole thing is absurd. We go after corps for spying on people, governments for bias, but if the truth is a lab leak killed 100s of millions, "Oh well". Come on! What's the goal here? Is this some weird US political "my guy vs your guy" thing?
- ethbr0 4y ago
  No, my response was not "Oh well." It was "And if we did all of that, how much would it decrease our future risk of zoonotic spillover?"
  - tripletao 4y ago
    And if we banned thalidomide, how much would that help pregnant women with morning sickness? The fact that you're trying to prevent one kind of harm (morning sickness, natural-origin pandemics) doesn't excuse causing unlimited amounts of a different kind of harm (birth defects, research-origin pandemics). The non-absurd version of this argument is that risky virological research will provide a public benefit offsetting the possible harm. None of its advocates seem able to articulate significant examples of that benefit yet, though, and even a small probability of millions of deaths is quite a lot of harm.
    - ethbr0 4y ago
      I haven't said it excuses it: I've just said that I don't see blame as productive. Something can be morally wrong and also less important to pursue. The non-absurd version of this argument is that we can't police everything, everywhere, especially across national borders with sovereign, independent governments in power. So taking that into account, there's always going to be a fog over truth in certain places. We can spend substantial amount of effort trying to pierce that, probably fruitlessly, or we can focus that effort on things we can actually change and improve.
      - ETH_start 4y ago
        >>The non-absurd version of this argument is that we can't police everything, everywhere, especially across national borders with sovereign, independent governments in power. By that logic, why bother trying to stop human CO2 emissions, or nuclear profileration. Afterall, controlling them requires policing phenomena that occur across international borders under the jurisdiction of numerous independent governments.
pclmulqdq 4y ago
It would not, but it would sure as hell reduce the risk of a lab leak. The whole idea of GoF research was to preempt evolution on bad viruses. If instead, the research is causing the evolution of bad viruses, it should be shut down.

And if we did all of that, how much would it decrease our future risk of zoonotic spillover?

by ethbr0 4y ago

And if we did all of that, how much would it decrease our future risk of zoonotic spillover?

b112 4y ago

The comment you are responding to, talks about alleged malfeasance, and morally bankrupt acts. Your response is, oh well? In terms of spillover, there is zero guarantee it would happen naturally. For any virus, it could, it may, and for some it has. But for any specific virus, it is absolutely not guaranteed. And purposefully training for human compatibility in a lab, clearly makes that maybe, a certainty, and if insufficient precautions are taken, that is a crime against humanity. This whole thing is absurd. We go after corps for spying on people, governments for bias, but if the truth is a lab leak killed 100s of millions, "Oh well". Come on! What's the goal here? Is this some weird US political "my guy vs your guy" thing?

ethbr0 4y ago
No, my response was not "Oh well." It was "And if we did all of that, how much would it decrease our future risk of zoonotic spillover?"
- tripletao 4y ago
  And if we banned thalidomide, how much would that help pregnant women with morning sickness? The fact that you're trying to prevent one kind of harm (morning sickness, natural-origin pandemics) doesn't excuse causing unlimited amounts of a different kind of harm (birth defects, research-origin pandemics). The non-absurd version of this argument is that risky virological research will provide a public benefit offsetting the possible harm. None of its advocates seem able to articulate significant examples of that benefit yet, though, and even a small probability of millions of deaths is quite a lot of harm.
  - ethbr0 4y ago
    I haven't said it excuses it: I've just said that I don't see blame as productive. Something can be morally wrong and also less important to pursue. The non-absurd version of this argument is that we can't police everything, everywhere, especially across national borders with sovereign, independent governments in power. So taking that into account, there's always going to be a fog over truth in certain places. We can spend substantial amount of effort trying to pierce that, probably fruitlessly, or we can focus that effort on things we can actually change and improve.
    - ETH_start 4y ago
      >>The non-absurd version of this argument is that we can't police everything, everywhere, especially across national borders with sovereign, independent governments in power. By that logic, why bother trying to stop human CO2 emissions, or nuclear profileration. Afterall, controlling them requires policing phenomena that occur across international borders under the jurisdiction of numerous independent governments.

pclmulqdq 4y ago

It would not, but it would sure as hell reduce the risk of a lab leak. The whole idea of GoF research was to preempt evolution on bad viruses. If instead, the research is causing the evolution of bad viruses, it should be shut down.