Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwway120385 | Hacker News Reader

throwway120385

There's a big difference between intentionally exposing a single consenting person to a modified pathogen for the purpose of giving them resistance and intentionally releasing a modified pathogen into the environment and allowing it to spread by its usual vector to the consenting and unconsenting alike without any regard.

If this were a virus created using gain of function research we would call it a biological weapon. But because the intent is different we're supposed to be excited and accepting of it?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

View on HN

> If this were a virus created using gain of function research we would call it a biological weapon.

Except it's the literal opposite of gain of function: it's the subtraction of function from a pathogen which already exists in the environment and already infects people on a regular basis in the environment, turning it from a deadly killer into something that dies quickly and without reproducing when it meets the human immune system.

People take actions every day that affect others, some negatively and some positively, and don't receive consent for each one. We don't need consent to put exhaust or other harmful chemicals into the air, and those are an explicit negative. Something like this could be a huge positive, potentially saving millions of lives. If the projected benefits to risks are sufficient (and I'm not saying they necessarily are, but if that turned out to be the case based on further testing), there is a point at which it would be worthwhile, despite it not being possible to get individual consent.

Yes, you’re supposed to be excited and accepting of things that save millions of lives, not decry them just because they have vaguely the same shape as something evil.

HN is having a real hard time here with the concept that mass death is actually bad and something that’s nice to prevent.

Is this the only way to prevent it? No.

Is there a better way?

Yes, attack the mosquitos, not the people.

That’s been done for decades and the problem is still severe.

Yes, there's room for improvement.

Perhaps the mosquitos could be infected with a modified parasite that confers immunity but doesn’t cause sickness.

No, that's still attacking people.

Although I agree that medical consent is important and the road to hell is so paved:

> But because the intent is different we're supposed to be excited and accepting of it?

One could say that it's the intent which varies between a heart transplant and an Azrec blood sacrifice.

> One could say that it's the intent which varies between a heart transplant and an Azrec blood sacrifice

I would say that consent is the key distinguishing factor and intent follows afterwards.

> One could say that it's the intent which varies between a heart transplant and an Azrec blood sacrifice.

Heart transplants are from consenting donors that have recently diseased, not living victims murdered solely for their organs. Blood sacrifices do not involve taking the heart and saving a live either. So no intent is not the variance there.

That sounds as much "intent" as what I replied to.

Which is why I gave that exact example.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com