Comment by estearum
2 hours ago
> Asteroid impact is a real risk too
I find analogies like this revealing (in the negative sense) of the level of thoughtfulness of bio-engineering advocates. Do you actually think this is an apt analogy? If so, you are not even remotely understanding the problem in front of us. If not, then are you just disingenuously deploying it and you’re unable to conjure up a more apt analogy?
In either case, it’s good evidence as to why I’m not comfortable accepting your prior stack of assumptions. The un-evidenced assumptions that come from a person who thinks asteroid strike risk is remotely similar to gene drives are frankly completely dismissible on their face.
In any case: Yes, you’re right that looking a lot and not finding anything does strengthen the argument there’s nothing to be found. How much? How much certainty do we need? Are there other cheap vectors by which to gain more certainty?
Acting like we have these answers and then saying “hopefully there no pollinators & it’s like an asteroid strike risk!” is seriously discrediting.
Is there a standard of evidence that would convince you it's ok to eliminate aedes aegypti? How much more evidence would it take? Or is your answer "no" regardless?
(And the asteroid strike thing was only an analogy for remote risk and the definition of fearmongering, not biotech in particular.)
The best evidence there is so far is that of the limited tests we've done on islands, and that gets pretty close to convincing me.
An answer like "we should roll out limited tests and incrementally understand the impact" would be a good one.
"there are other things called mosquitos" is not a good one.
Deciding here, without sufficient evidence, whether I'm OK with eliminating aedes aegypti would be frankly bizarre and totally unnecessary.
Similar to the prior point: the fact that advocates try to advocate for the end state and not, you know, propose ways to de-risk incremental learning, is discrediting.