This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Apparently, a lab in china has created a virus with a 100% kill rate in humanized mice. Combined with the fact that there's a decent chance that COVID was a lab leak, this sort of thing is extremely dangerous to be doing.
I'm not sure how best to make it so that people are not incentivized to do things like this, but ceasing to fund this variety of research (it looks like the US ended one program that was pushing this sort of thing last year), and instating some sort of legal liability on those who do this, and especially if they dispose of it badly, probably seem like good decisions.
Extremely dangerous diseases are among the top few things in being both disastrous to humanity (unlike climate change) and also relatively likely (unlike a massive asteroid hitting earth). Development of them is also something that is not excessively difficult to do. This is probably the closest thing we have so far to Bostrom's black ball metaphor. People joke about Yudkowskian airstrikes on data centers; would airstrikes on labs be similarly warranted? More seriously, though, there should be far more effort put into preventing this sort of thing than there currently is.
Bostrom's concerns should probably be something more important to be aware of. The ideal is just to not develop technology in specific fields to the point that killing millions is a cheap and easy thing to do. Of course, the tradeoff is totalitarianism, a terror of its own.
EDIT: Some of the comments have argued, relatively convincingly, that this particular news story was overblown and misleading.
I'll preface this by saying I agree with the concerns around GoF research and that it is a real problem.
Now, to add some context: This is the preprint in question.
Don't trust '100% mortality' hyped up by a news org, it's the equivalent of hack tech writers claiming '100% cancer cure rate' in some mouse model. You can get '100% mortality' with a high enough dose of relatively benign rhinoviruses that just cause colds in humans. In this preprint, the authors infected with 500,000 PFUs (plaque forming units, supposedly one PFU = 1 virus). This may not bring much comfort to people, but the LD50 of a mouse-adapted stain of COVID is 1000 TCID50 (similar to PFUs), or two orders of magnitude lower. It's hard to get a direct comparison, but here's another paper reporting an LD50 of 1000 PFUs in ferrets.
You're probably not going to die next year of GX_P2V infection. Beware articles in the New York Post throwing red meat to the base.
I don't have time to do this topic justice, but as for 'banning GoF research' - this would not have been classified as GoF research under most paradigms. Wild virus isolates were passaged in cell culture; this is simply how you propagate virus for study. Generally, propagation in vitro attenuates viruses and makes them less pathogenic, modulo some cases (admittedly similar to this one) where you may pass viruses adapted to one species in cells from another.
We produce a lot of vaccines and gene therapy vectors this way, although even those examples contain multitudes. Maybe you want a carveout for very well understood processes that we've been doing for years, but you'd have to think very carefully about crafting it.
The biological process may be similar, but there is a big difference in risk profile between taking a human pathogen and passing it through non-human cells (making it less pathogenic to humans), and taking an animal pathogen and passing it through human cells (making it more pathogenic to humans).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link