5 ms·

What questions would you ask to decide if someone is a trustworthy steward of that technology?

brigandish 4y ago
Did you fund gain of research function at the labs in Wuhan? Do you know what they found? Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site? Things like that ;-)
- alexvoda 4y ago
  These would not answer whether someone behaves responsibly with dangerous research. It answers whether someone had any connection to Wuhan. You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access. Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy? This is just guilt by association.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    > These would not answer whether someone behaves responsibly with dangerous research. Let's see. “Did you fund gain of research function at the labs in Wuhan?” This speaks to trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness. “Do you know what they found?” This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and transparency. “Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site?” This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness. > You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access. It shows that those with the technology now are not trustworthy, going forward I might have different questions but we should start where we are, not by providing an apologetic and condoning poor behaviour. > Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy? Did they fuck up? Were they part of an organisation that fucked up? What did they do to stop the incredible fuck up from happening? > This is just guilt by association. Of whom to what?
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      Again, your 3 questions do not provide any information with regards to trustworthiness. You have just decided that the Wuhan Lab is an epicenter of evil and therefore anyone tangential is untrustworthy. There is no logical connection, you filled it in. With regards to Cernobyl, other than Anatoly Dyatlov (who can directly be ascribed blame and served prison time), it is really hard to blame any of the people involved. Yet there were all kinds of known and unknown stresses and defects in the system that resulted in a tragedy. Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy?
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > You have just decided that the Wuhan Lab is an epicenter of evil and therefore anyone tangential is untrustworthy. I'm so glad you were able to read my mind, perhaps you could open source your mind reading device, or would that be too dangerous to share to the public? What I have decided is that there is evidence of lies by people involved in the funding and the implementation of the research at Wuhan, there really is no need for your clumsy straw men, especially when you can read my mind. > Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy? I'm the one arguing for the further distribution of technology, are you arguing with yourself now or did your mind reading device go on the blink?

Did you fund gain of research function at the labs in Wuhan? Do you know what they found? Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site? Things like that ;-)

alexvoda 4y ago
These would not answer whether someone behaves responsibly with dangerous research. It answers whether someone had any connection to Wuhan. You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access. Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy? This is just guilt by association.
- brigandish 4y ago
  > These would not answer whether someone behaves responsibly with dangerous research. Let's see. “Did you fund gain of research function at the labs in Wuhan?” This speaks to trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness. “Do you know what they found?” This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and transparency. “Were you aware of the low level of biosecurity protocols on the site?” This speaks to, again, trustworthiness and responsibility/recklessness. > You can find plenty of people who would answer all "no"-s and would be far more destructive if they had access. It shows that those with the technology now are not trustworthy, going forward I might have different questions but we should start where we are, not by providing an apologetic and condoning poor behaviour. > Would you also claim that no one who worked at Cernobyl was trustworthy? Did they fuck up? Were they part of an organisation that fucked up? What did they do to stop the incredible fuck up from happening? > This is just guilt by association. Of whom to what?
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    Again, your 3 questions do not provide any information with regards to trustworthiness. You have just decided that the Wuhan Lab is an epicenter of evil and therefore anyone tangential is untrustworthy. There is no logical connection, you filled it in. With regards to Cernobyl, other than Anatoly Dyatlov (who can directly be ascribed blame and served prison time), it is really hard to blame any of the people involved. Yet there were all kinds of known and unknown stresses and defects in the system that resulted in a tragedy. Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy?
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > You have just decided that the Wuhan Lab is an epicenter of evil and therefore anyone tangential is untrustworthy. I'm so glad you were able to read my mind, perhaps you could open source your mind reading device, or would that be too dangerous to share to the public? What I have decided is that there is evidence of lies by people involved in the funding and the implementation of the research at Wuhan, there really is no need for your clumsy straw men, especially when you can read my mind. > Does that mean we should ban nuclear energy? I'm the one arguing for the further distribution of technology, are you arguing with yourself now or did your mind reading device go on the blink?