5 ms·

Maybe they can find a common DNA profile for an efficient bio-weapon. Oops. I think we already reached the end of the bioweapon tech tree with Sarin gas.

jacquesm 3y ago
No, you are misreading the GP. What they mean is a bioweapon specifically tailored to match a particular DNA profile. Think Germany, 1939, or South Africa, 1985, but with this capability to see what the possibilities are and how utterly unstoppable that would be. And probably there are contemporary examples as well, but I don't feel like starting a flame-fest.
- consumer451 3y ago
  It could be specific to a family, or with this broad a DNA + meta data dataset, it could be enough data to wipe out much of an entire group. Choose the common traits in people who self-identified as a group. English, Jews, Slavs, Native South Americans, non-Han, etc. The problem with bio-weapons has always been "blow back." Narrowing the scope of the weapon would help a lot with that.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Exactly, the better the control the bigger the chance that a weapon like this would be used.
  - anonymouskimmer 3y ago
    Any narrowing of scope would be temporary.
- Libcat99 3y ago
  I think the important takeaway is such a weapon could potentially target a DNA profile while ignoring others.
  - jacquesm 3y ago
    Yes, exactly. And that DNA profile could be more or less specific as well to the point where you can commit genocide. Think 'final solution', not 'James Bond'.
    - eesmith 3y ago
      There will be several Nobel Prizes in creating the technology to get this bioweapon. You need something which reproduces itself even in non-targets, which enters the cell's nucleus, which detects the correct DNA - which may be scattered across the genome! -, which has a mechanism that kills the target people, and where none of this will mutate so as to stop effectiveness, change/broaden the target population, etc. Furthermore, just because people identify as a group does not mean they have a distinct genetic pattern. How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? This appears to be a harder task than curing cancer, in that many of the same techniques could be used to target cancerous cells but that does not require the ability to spread from person to person. A bioweapon doesn't appear in a vacuum. The required technological advances will be widely known. In this fantastical cancer-free world, why wouldn't your local health care center have the ability to sequence unexpected genomes and prepare a vaccine or phage in the same day?
      - janalsncm 3y ago
        > How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? You don’t need to have a 1:1 mapping in order to be effective. Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group is enough. Similarly, such a bioweapon in an assassination context doesn’t need to only kill the target or go unnoticed. It’s enough that it is a disease or irritant that a particular individual is susceptible to.
        eesmith 3y ago
        I think you're missing the point. Assuming you have a communicable bioweapon which is somehow able to target based on genetics, and assuming the rest of the world isn't able to defend against it, that still leaves the very tricky question of finding a genetic basis which characterizes any of those three categories in a way which is sufficiently effective. Do you really believe there is way to identify "Christians" based on genetics? "Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group" is NOT enough. You also need specificity. What genetic markers indicate "American"? Sure, if you target something simple like "has a Y chromosome" you might take out about 50% of the US population, which is likely a sufficient number, but you'll do equal damage to your own population. How would a bioweapon meaningfully target "Hispanics"? The term is definitely not based in genetics. If some villagers from a German town emigrated to Argentina and others from the same village emigrated to Canada, then according to the US the descendants of the first group are just as Hispanic as Black Spanish-speaking Cubans, while the descendants of the second group are "white". But, okay, you've figured something out. Now how do you prevent your bioweapon from mutating the specificity away? You've added a lot of machinery to the organism which must be preserved perfectly even though that machinery isn't required in order to reproduce. The more failsafes you put in, the bulkier the organism and/or the fewer genetic markers you can target. Clearly you should be promoting DEI as a way to increase group robustness against future bioweapons. ;)
- jimbob45 3y ago
  That only seems useful if said bioweapon can’t be determined by anyone else to have been DNA-based. Otherwise, why not just use a conventional bioweapon (lol) and target it more precisely? Using this hypothetical DNA targeting technology doesn’t seem like it’s solving a real problem. I guess if you could target one person specifically? But then again there are way easier ways to kill people.

jacquesm 3y ago

No, you are misreading the GP. What they mean is a bioweapon specifically tailored to match a particular DNA profile. Think Germany, 1939, or South Africa, 1985, but with this capability to see what the possibilities are and how utterly unstoppable that would be. And probably there are contemporary examples as well, but I don't feel like starting a flame-fest.

consumer451 3y ago
It could be specific to a family, or with this broad a DNA + meta data dataset, it could be enough data to wipe out much of an entire group. Choose the common traits in people who self-identified as a group. English, Jews, Slavs, Native South Americans, non-Han, etc. The problem with bio-weapons has always been "blow back." Narrowing the scope of the weapon would help a lot with that.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Exactly, the better the control the bigger the chance that a weapon like this would be used.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  Any narrowing of scope would be temporary.
Libcat99 3y ago
I think the important takeaway is such a weapon could potentially target a DNA profile while ignoring others.
- jacquesm 3y ago
  Yes, exactly. And that DNA profile could be more or less specific as well to the point where you can commit genocide. Think 'final solution', not 'James Bond'.
  - eesmith 3y ago
    There will be several Nobel Prizes in creating the technology to get this bioweapon. You need something which reproduces itself even in non-targets, which enters the cell's nucleus, which detects the correct DNA - which may be scattered across the genome! -, which has a mechanism that kills the target people, and where none of this will mutate so as to stop effectiveness, change/broaden the target population, etc. Furthermore, just because people identify as a group does not mean they have a distinct genetic pattern. How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? This appears to be a harder task than curing cancer, in that many of the same techniques could be used to target cancerous cells but that does not require the ability to spread from person to person. A bioweapon doesn't appear in a vacuum. The required technological advances will be widely known. In this fantastical cancer-free world, why wouldn't your local health care center have the ability to sequence unexpected genomes and prepare a vaccine or phage in the same day?
    - janalsncm 3y ago
      > How would you target "Christians" or "Americans" or "Hispanics"? You don’t need to have a 1:1 mapping in order to be effective. Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group is enough. Similarly, such a bioweapon in an assassination context doesn’t need to only kill the target or go unnoticed. It’s enough that it is a disease or irritant that a particular individual is susceptible to.
      - eesmith 3y ago
        I think you're missing the point. Assuming you have a communicable bioweapon which is somehow able to target based on genetics, and assuming the rest of the world isn't able to defend against it, that still leaves the very tricky question of finding a genetic basis which characterizes any of those three categories in a way which is sufficiently effective. Do you really believe there is way to identify "Christians" based on genetics? "Incapacitating a sufficient number of a group" is NOT enough. You also need specificity. What genetic markers indicate "American"? Sure, if you target something simple like "has a Y chromosome" you might take out about 50% of the US population, which is likely a sufficient number, but you'll do equal damage to your own population. How would a bioweapon meaningfully target "Hispanics"? The term is definitely not based in genetics. If some villagers from a German town emigrated to Argentina and others from the same village emigrated to Canada, then according to the US the descendants of the first group are just as Hispanic as Black Spanish-speaking Cubans, while the descendants of the second group are "white". But, okay, you've figured something out. Now how do you prevent your bioweapon from mutating the specificity away? You've added a lot of machinery to the organism which must be preserved perfectly even though that machinery isn't required in order to reproduce. The more failsafes you put in, the bulkier the organism and/or the fewer genetic markers you can target. Clearly you should be promoting DEI as a way to increase group robustness against future bioweapons. ;)
jimbob45 3y ago
That only seems useful if said bioweapon can’t be determined by anyone else to have been DNA-based. Otherwise, why not just use a conventional bioweapon (lol) and target it more precisely? Using this hypothetical DNA targeting technology doesn’t seem like it’s solving a real problem. I guess if you could target one person specifically? But then again there are way easier ways to kill people.