4 ms·

That you even express the problem like this shows an impressive ammount of bias. By calling them dangerous people you are actually implying malice. What makes y

That you even express the problem like this shows an impressive ammount of bias. By calling them dangerous people you are actually implying malice. What makes you believe people with access to biomedical tech are inherently more malicious than the populace? What makes you believe there aren't far more malicious people who do not yet have access to such tech? I think this is just fear of the unknown at work. Biomedical knowledge is complicated and requires effort to learn therefore most consider it a known unknown therefore something to be feared. Some people do have such knowledge therefore they are to be feared because who knows what nefarious intentions they have and what conspiracies they are part of. Therefore they are dangerous people using dangerous tech. Were the physicists who discovered how to split the atom also dangerous people?

t-3 4y ago
Danger is not a moral judgement, but a rational one. Iranian nuclear scientists weren't assassinated for no reason, and I highly doubt anyone involved had serious moral accusation to make against them. The U.S. also banned export of cryptography in the past (and still does in some cases), solely based on strategic grounds, not because mathematicians are "bad people". People in positions of or close to power and/or possessing certain knowledge are dangerous, not because they are necessarily morally repugnant, but because of their privilege and ability.
pjc50 4y ago
> Were the physicists who discovered how to split the atom also dangerous people? In the ordinary meaning of the word? Yes. That's why they were sworn to secrecy. Not the same as saying they were immoral or wrong to have worked on the Bomb, that's a different debate, but in terms of sheer effectiveness they were incredibly dangerous. An army is dangerous. That's how it works.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  To you and sibling comment I would argue the comment I responded to conflated dangerous with immoral. Danger is part of the domain of threat modelling. And when doing threat modelling, the morality of the opponent is a distraction. However in the domain of propaganda, threats, immorality and assigning the latter to the former go hand in hand.
  - brigandish 4y ago
    I didn't realise my career as a propagandist was going so well. Regardless, have the people involved in gain of function research of coronaviruses been shown to be trustworthy? I would argue not, given the evidence[1]. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-fu...
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      Define trustworthy. What kind of trust did you place in them that was now broken? I at the very least believe they would not desire to expose themselves and their loved ones to pathogens. If the origin was a leak, then, sure, we should see if any biosecurity protocol was broken and why, and design better protocols. But posturing that the researchers were not "trustworthy" is not helpful. You call them untrustworthy and dangerous people and by that you are implying malice. Why? And what makes you believe outside of that small circle there aren't people far more malicious? If creating diseases becomes so easy anyone can do it, we will see the age of biological ransomware. I am certain there are people far more malicious and far more immoral than any of the researchers who worked on this.
      - brigandish 4y ago
        > Define trustworthy. Come on, I'm not a student debating in the common room, this is just silly.
        alexvoda 4y ago
        It is the key word on which your argument rests and you used it in every comment in this thread. Since you decline, I believe it is useless to continue the discussion.
        brigandish 4y ago
        I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement.

t-3 4y ago

Danger is not a moral judgement, but a rational one. Iranian nuclear scientists weren't assassinated for no reason, and I highly doubt anyone involved had serious moral accusation to make against them. The U.S. also banned export of cryptography in the past (and still does in some cases), solely based on strategic grounds, not because mathematicians are "bad people". People in positions of or close to power and/or possessing certain knowledge are dangerous, not because they are necessarily morally repugnant, but because of their privilege and ability.

pjc50 4y ago

> Were the physicists who discovered how to split the atom also dangerous people? In the ordinary meaning of the word? Yes. That's why they were sworn to secrecy. Not the same as saying they were immoral or wrong to have worked on the Bomb, that's a different debate, but in terms of sheer effectiveness they were incredibly dangerous. An army is dangerous. That's how it works.

alexvoda 4y ago
To you and sibling comment I would argue the comment I responded to conflated dangerous with immoral. Danger is part of the domain of threat modelling. And when doing threat modelling, the morality of the opponent is a distraction. However in the domain of propaganda, threats, immorality and assigning the latter to the former go hand in hand.
- brigandish 4y ago
  I didn't realise my career as a propagandist was going so well. Regardless, have the people involved in gain of function research of coronaviruses been shown to be trustworthy? I would argue not, given the evidence[1]. [1] https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-function-research/ https://theintercept.com/2021/09/09/covid-origins-gain-of-fu...
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    Define trustworthy. What kind of trust did you place in them that was now broken? I at the very least believe they would not desire to expose themselves and their loved ones to pathogens. If the origin was a leak, then, sure, we should see if any biosecurity protocol was broken and why, and design better protocols. But posturing that the researchers were not "trustworthy" is not helpful. You call them untrustworthy and dangerous people and by that you are implying malice. Why? And what makes you believe outside of that small circle there aren't people far more malicious? If creating diseases becomes so easy anyone can do it, we will see the age of biological ransomware. I am certain there are people far more malicious and far more immoral than any of the researchers who worked on this.
    - brigandish 4y ago
      > Define trustworthy. Come on, I'm not a student debating in the common room, this is just silly.
      - alexvoda 4y ago
        It is the key word on which your argument rests and you used it in every comment in this thread. Since you decline, I believe it is useless to continue the discussion.
        brigandish 4y ago
        I'm glad we were able to come to an agreement.