This is the more interesting and important claim to check to me. I think the barriers to engineering bacteria are much lower, but it’s not obvious that this will avoid detection and humans responding to the threat, or that timing and/or triggers in bacteria can be reliable enough.
We do at least have one example of something like this happening already for natural causes, the Great Oxigenation Event. How long did that take? Had we been anaerobic organisms at the time, could we have stopped it?
Possibly, but by limiting access to the arguments, you also limit the public case for it and engagement by skeptics. The views within the area will also probably further reflect self-selection for credulousness and deference over skepticism.
There must be less infohazardous arguments we can engage with. Or, maybe zero-knowledge proofs are somehow applicable. Or, we can select a mutually trusted skeptic (or set of skeptics) with relevant expertise to engage privately. Or, legally binding contracts to prevent sharing.
This is the more interesting and important claim to check to me. I think the barriers to engineering bacteria are much lower, but it’s not obvious that this will avoid detection and humans responding to the threat, or that timing and/or triggers in bacteria can be reliable enough.
Unfortunately, explaining exactly what kind of engineered bacteria could be dangerous is a rather serious infohazard.
Don’t worry, I know of a way to stop any engineered bacteria before they can do any harm.
No, I’m not going to tell you what it is. Infohazard.
We do at least have one example of something like this happening already for natural causes, the Great Oxigenation Event. How long did that take? Had we been anaerobic organisms at the time, could we have stopped it?
Possibly, but by limiting access to the arguments, you also limit the public case for it and engagement by skeptics. The views within the area will also probably further reflect self-selection for credulousness and deference over skepticism.
There must be less infohazardous arguments we can engage with. Or, maybe zero-knowledge proofs are somehow applicable. Or, we can select a mutually trusted skeptic (or set of skeptics) with relevant expertise to engage privately. Or, legally binding contracts to prevent sharing.