[ExI] Virologist cures herself of breast cancer with a lab grown virus

[efc at disroot.org]

On Sat, 23 Nov 2024, Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 22, 2024 at 2:10 PM efc--- via extropy-chat <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>       That is their responsibility and theirs only.
> 
> 
> If your neighbor decided to set fire to their house, in such a way that your house is guaranteed to catch fire, and this can be
> reasonably foreseen by all parties, is it still your neighbor's responsibility only?
> 
> The problem in this aspect is the predictable externalities.

It is not a fire we are talking about. A lot can actually be internalized.
   
>       I'm sure that people with an interest in such experiments have
>       access to internet, books and knowledge.
> 
> 
> The internet, books and knowledge is a fair step down from the attention and help of a well-stocked, well-trained lab.

Depends on the activity. Without concrete details and scenarios, knowing 
who we are talking about, what they want to do, where they live, etc. you 
will continue to assume worst case, and I will continue to assume not 
worst case.

>       I doubt a redneck in the middle
>       of Alaska all of a sudden decides to turn biohacker.
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=alaska+biohacker would suggest otherwise.

See above. I doubt all of them are currently involved in developing a new 
plague.
   
>       These cases are very interesting! However, what is lacking is probability.
>       These things can happen during official experiments as well (and have
>       happened) so if this is a reason, we should not do any medical experiments
>       at all, except for the most trivial ones.
> 
> 
> Agreed that probability is part of it: the probability of these things happening in DIY scenarios is much higher than the probability
> in traditional labs.

This is too thin an argument. Leads us nowhere.
   
>       If someone has malicious intent, all bets are off anyways. This is
>       actually my argument for that we are all engineered for overall and
>       average goodness over badness, given the fact that we've had the
>       capability to completely destroy our planet for decades, yet this has
>       never happened.
> 
> 
> A more compelling argument is that restrictions on this sort of thing keep hurting those who would defend the public and not
> significantly impeding those who wish to do harm, in practice.

I stand by my original argument.
   
>       This tells me, at some level, even dictators, terrorist
>       and eco-fascists want to life.
> 
> 
> Eh...I wouldn't be so sure about the latter.  The former want themselves to live, and for others to die for them.

They realize that if the planet is dead, so are they.