This is the first time I've seen one of these proposals which highlights a future potential harm and then makes the healthy proposal for radical open COOPERATION and mutual self-restraint instead of a surveillance panopticon and tyrannical oppression as the solution. Bravo!<p>Recommendations:<p>* In a first line of effort, the United States should engage scientific superpowers,
especially China, to build the foundation for collective restraint. Policymakers and the scientific community should prioritize transparent scientific collaboration, shared risk assessments, and early norm-setting.<p>* For the second line of effort, the United States should promote collective restraint across domestic, allied, and global scientific communities. This involves combining incentive-reducing measures with monitoring, verification, and other early-stage deterrence tools.<p>* The United States should take great caution with actions or statements that could foster mistrust or spur strategic competition in the field of mirror life or its enabling technologies.<p>* The United States must commit clearly to not developing mirror life, even if other actors are suspected of pursuing it.<p>* U.S. policymakers should advance actions that require long lead times, such as legislation, treaties, and international engagement, in parallel.<p>* U.S. policymakers should also treat countermeasures and resilience as constrained contingencies.
I'm curious what solutions to Future threats you think qualify as a panopticon, and why the following set of words in this context don't make you worried about the same:<p>>monitoring, verification, and other early-stage deterrence tools.
I’m sure smart and well intentioned American leaders will act for the global collective good, since that’s totally the way things work now.
The proposal tries to go against the current trend of US isolationism which burned a lot of good will with the rest of the world, and gain a bit of soft power back. Noble goal, but I’m not sure who wants to align behind the US today and risk getting dumped tomorrow.<p>On the topic of mirror life, doesn’t it need mirror food? I was under the impression that they couldn’t consume natural sugars for example, and so on. They’re talking about mirror life that uses non-mirrored molecules to propagate? How is mirror life building itself without mirror-everything-else?
off topic but I've noticed this CAPITALIZATION more and more in online discourse. I don't like it, but if you're using it can you maybe explain where it comes from?<p>It definitely seems like a zoomer thing.
Every time I see it I think of those YouTube videos people used to make: Ben Shapiro OWNS feminist with FACTS and LOGIC. Definitely sets the bozo bit.
One could argue that it's just what's old becoming new again. In older English capitalization of words was often used to add emphasis or imply meaning beyond what could be conveyed in a sentence by itself. For instance from the Declaration of Independence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."<p>I don't actually know why this faded and got gradually replaced by our quite specific rules. It seems like a nice way for an author to be able to express much more meaning in the exact same number of characters.
> It seems like a nice way for an author to be able to express much more meaning in the exact same number of characters.<p>Quite the opposite: It damages beyond repair the ability to pick out proper names at speed.<p>English has a horrid habit of re-using common nouns as names. The miller John becomes John miller, not John Miller.<p>Worse, the proliferation of brand names means that readers depend on capitalization to know if they are talking about, e.g., google, a common generic term for searching, or Google, the Alphabet (not alphabet!) subsidiary.<p>So, under the new regime, authors get to be more precious at the expense of their audience's time and concentration.<p>That's a Nope from Me, Dawg.
I don't get it though. If you want to create <i>emphasis</i> why not use asterisks?<p>Ha! HN makes it italic. I forgot that.
El presidente does this a lot. Maybe it’s leaking out.
It’s against the guidelines because it’s been used for emphasis (with varying degrees of classiness) since before the beginning of the Internet.
Why do you think such an approach would work, but something equivalent to try to prevent mass shootings / school shooter type gun violence wouldn't? Or would you say that radical open cooperation and mutual self restraint led by governments could stop the American problem of mass shootings like the Las Vegas shooter?<p>I don't see how you stop terrorism (of the school shooter type, not the Islamic/political type) with inter-government cooperation. Mirror life is just another vector for school shooters but with PHDs.
A great science fiction premise could be that a technologically
advanced adversary genetically engineers mirror life people to work as
spies and saboteurs at wiping out the rest of the population so they
can have the world for themselves, but they get rumbled by dogs
specially trained to sniff them out or various other means that
might surprise and delight the reader. I vaguely remember reading
somewhere that the difference between the smell of an orange and a
lemon is down to the chirality of a single molecule.
Are the mirror bacteria sporting tiny little goatees?
Extremely relevant: <a href="https://www.hoover.org/research/biosecurity-really-strategy-victory" rel="nofollow">https://www.hoover.org/research/biosecurity-really-strategy-...</a>
So, my first time learning that mirror life is a thing and about its terrifying implications. I guess that's enough internet for today.
If mirror bacteria could spread and avoid the body's immune defences, why has it not already evolved?
This isn't something that could be caused by a mutation in a single nucleotide or a segment being deleted or inserted, the way normal mutations happen and get passed on. This would be an entirely different set of (mirrored) machinery composing (mirrored) structures from (mirrored) subunits.<p>Whatever caused life to begin in the first place would maybe be the right place to look to recreate this naturally. If life began again from step 0, but with the opposite chirality, it could then progress forward towards mirrored bacteria.
Because it's too much of a lift at once. To <i>naturally</i> get a mirror E-Coli you'd need a separate planet and billions of years and lots of luck.
because as it was never observed to date, it could be assumed it does not exists yet, as the the article makes it sounds like it's very artificial / constructed
I swear I read of pharma companies experimenting with this. The idea that because the molecules are so foreign, the body lacks enzymes to breakdown the product, so the drug gets a much longer half-life than would be typical.
The underlying property is called "chirality" and describes why a left glove and a right glove are meaningfully different from each other even though they have the same topology.<p>Many things can have chirality: big things like gloves, and small things like drugs. The concept is not alone is not a danger. The concept of a thing which could take our raw materials, disassemble them, and recompose them in a way that would deny us the use of those resources, is the stuff of sci fi horror thriller.<p>It sounds like the first thing that should be done is to contact Hollywood to make a really terrifying movie.<p>In the sequel Russia will have bred a new generation of opposite-chirality humans and will be racing to colonize space first.<p>(The big in-joke will be that they all wear the same gloves)
See also “Your DietBet Destroyed the World” <a href="https://laprade.blog/your-dietbet-destroyed-the-world" rel="nofollow">https://laprade.blog/your-dietbet-destroyed-the-world</a><p>One of my favourite short stories, it’s always stuck with me since it was posted to HN a few years ago.
Except in the world of "anything is possible," mirror life would have no food. All biomolecules are chiral.<p>On the other hand, the recommendations are all commonsense, and don't only apply to mirror life. For instance...<p>>>> In a first line of effort, the United States should engage scientific superpowers, especially China, to build the foundation for collective restraint. Policymakers and the scientific community should prioritize transparent scientific collaboration, shared risk assessments, and early norm-setting.
This is something which has been thought about by those in the field, and the conclusion is that it’s probably possible to engineer an organism with an ample food supply,<p>e.g in this report<p><a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158" rel="nofollow">https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158</a><p>“ Achiral nutrients are available in quantities sufficient for growth of common bacteria in a wide range of natural environments, including within potential hosts (1). Further genetic engineering could provide mirror bacteria with pathways needed to consume abundant chiral nutrients such as d-glucose.
Growth of mirror bacteria outside of the laboratory is therefore plausible. However, their interactions with other lifeforms would differ profoundly because of their reversed chirality.”
Incorrect. There are symmetric achiral molecules. Which can be consumed as food for both normal, and mirror life, thus creating competition for resources.
That <i>was</i> the belief - but it was found it was possible to grow E.coli on non-chiral molecules that are commonly available.
The worry then is that the immune system will ignore the wrong-chirality infection.<p>See p.14 of <a href="https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/cv716pj4036/Technical%20Report%20on%20Mirror%20Bacteria%20Feasibility%20and%20Risks.pdf?download=true" rel="nofollow">https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/cv716pj4036/Technical%20Rep...</a>
> Except in the world of "anything is possible," mirror life would have no food. All biomolecules are chiral.<p>Many essential biomolecules, nutrients, and amino acides are achiral (e.g. carbon dioxide, water, ammonium, phosphate, sulfate, glycine, and more). Mirror organisms could easily - at least in the realm of plausibility - function as autotrophs to convert sunlight, CO2, etc. into organic sugars, or extract energy from inorganic materials like hydrogen or iron paired with CO2.
Ah, another edition of "Don't Create the Torment Nexus". Expect startups to race for a demo of mirror life soon!
I thought they were concerned with people living on their devices. Like a mirror digital world. Too bad.
Leaving this here for no particular reason: <a href="https://www.rifters.com/real/STARFISH.htm#prelude" rel="nofollow">https://www.rifters.com/real/STARFISH.htm#prelude</a>
Would dextro bacteria even be able to infect levo based life? Or is this just some fearmongering about bio to give more power to the government?
Maybe it could, maybe it could not. If it could and we had no defence against, it could be disastrous, even world ending (for us). The precautionary principle applies.<p>I'm not sure what advantage you see to a government in restricting this.
Non-threat. Life has evolved and re-evolved thousands if not millions of times. One of those iterations would have been mirror biology if it were viable.
> Life has evolved and re-evolved thousands if not millions of times.<p>From scratch, on the most basic enzymatic level? Nonsense, there's no evidence for that.<p>> Non-threat.<p>Most of the things that ever existed are dead, yet plenty of them could absolutely wreck humanity if magically reintroduced into an unprepared system.