4 ms·
Terrible, FUD-heavy, thin reporting begs the question: Are we talking independent biohackers, low budget quasi-startups, and/or terrorism? The presumptive dem
by sacnoradhq 3y ago
Terrible, FUD-heavy, thin reporting begs the question:
Are we talking independent biohackers, low budget quasi-startups, and/or terrorism?
The presumptive demonization and loaded language doesn't do justice to whether there was truly harmful negligence or just low-budget sloppiness. Although I thoroughly dislike animal testing, I doubt it can be completely eliminated.
- jonathankoren 3y agoIf there's a release of a dangerous pathogen, does it really matter what type of illegal lab it was? "Why jolly oh! I may be coughing up my bloody chunks of lung, but at least this preventable danger was the result of young entrepreneurial biohacker with some hustle, by god!"
- Kerb_ 3y agoBecause if you know who they are and what their intent is, you can come to different conclusions and plans in dealing with the fallout. If it's a YouTubers self experimentation fucking up you go after them and any illicit suppliers and make public notices about how dangerous it is. If it's an Operation Sea Spray 2 you probably oughta start whistleblowing and getting a large scale response in place. If it's a foreign state actor, you need to prepare for biological warfare, and also war. Biohacker, independent or organized terrorist, attempted assassin, drug synthesizer. It would be helpful to know.
- jonathankoren 3y agoMissed the part about "presumptive demonization and loaded language", eh? The guy was trying to say that if the dangerous lab was hustling, it's cool. It was a shit take.
- Kerb_ 3y agoIt is a shit take, that's why I wasn't responding to their comment in agreement. I was responding to "If there's a release of a dangerous pathogen, does it really matter what type of illegal lab it was?" with reasons the type of illegal lab matters.
- jonathankoren 3y agoAlright. We're cool. We're friends 4evah. :)