[baq]

The nuance is not what they propose, but why, even according to them, they propose this. Honestly the proposals are appalling, but biosafety arguments are not immediately dismissible. Ultimate cyber threats we can handle by rewinding society 50 years back. We can’t undo a novel genetically engineered virus.

[hypfer]

I mean arguably, we _could_ create conditions in which it is much less likely for people to start developing such a novel genetically engineered virus.

If you think about the factors that lead to people wanting to do such a thing, they're almost always tied to (perceived) inequality, (perceived) injustice or similar in some way.

I do believe that we could greatly reduce a whole bunch of such risks by just stopping to squeeze people as hard as we do right now.

But that would require a major refactoring I guess.

[sometimelurker]

> ...ch less likely for people to start developing such a novel genetically engineered virus.

only people that would do this would be crazy bc it cant be controled after release.

[hypfer]

Yes but ethical responsibilities are entirely irrelevant, because that crazy person would still bioweapon you, and you kinda do not want that.

So regardless of if they're evil/bad/crazy or not, you still want to have that not happen. Hence the systemic perspective instead of the focus on the individual.