caltrek wrote: ↑Tue Oct 12, 2021 4:39 pm
The only two reasons this is a “debate” are to attempt to paint China as incompetent for the purpose of imperial conflict and to deflect from human impact on the ecosystem.
I don't think we should come to conclusions based on the possible political motivations of those making the argument. We could just as easily argue that those who favor the natural transmission from the Wuhan market are also making the case concerning Chinese incompetence in basic health and hygiene practices; or are trying to deflect from the possible problems of lab practices. It has been argued that some who are pushing the Wuhan market natural escape explanation were themselves implicated in collaborating with the Wuhan labs, and are trying to deflect from their possible involvement and share of the blame.
We should stick with the science. Unfortunately, depending upon who you talk to, the science itself seems ambiguous on the matter.
Rest assured I did read the quote from the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists and also respect their publications. However I vehemently disagree with this framing and do consider it unscientific because it refuses to approach the root cause of the problem.
Say for a moment that the Chinese lab in Wuhan did in fact isolate a coronavirus strain that had potential to breakout from an animal reservoir and proceeded to replicate the virus for purpose of study. Say the labs containment protocols then failed entirely and this was the true source of case zero. What would the outcome be? How would our media frame this incident and how would common discourse think of the event? What consent would be manufactured? Considering the current rhetoric in our media surrounding China both prior to and after the pandemic I think it is reasonable to assume the event would be spun against the Chinese government for realpolitik purposes.
So say, "Erowind, in that case they did do it! Why do you care?!" I care because it's not about the blasted Chinese government, I've made clear in other threads too I don't approve of it. And believe it or not it's not even about American imperialism or whatever other leftist line people may expect me to tow here. The real crux of the problem here that is being utterly ignored by almost everyone except select scientific researchers, is the connection to the ecological crisis. And that is the existential question. It is bigger than China, America, and all of the other nonsense the media shoves down our throats combined because it will be our end without action and consciousness of it.
So how does the ecological crisis tie into a lab of a given country replicating and modifying a virus from an animal reservoir? (If this is even the case.) It ties in because that very lab would have had to rely on human encroachment on ecosystems to begin with in order to acquire the virus that is close enough to breaking out already in order to replicate it in such a manner.
Meaning, no matter where the virus came from, whether from a lab through artificial replication, or from an animal reservoir in BOTH CASES it came from an animal reservoir and in BOTH CASES human activity and encroachment on ecosystems is responsible. In other words, the framing of the question is wrong, and the only reasonable conclusion is to the tie the causal origin of the virus into a discussion on human land use and human use of this planets ecosystems as that use is the causal origin. It is not constructive or useful to the species to turn this into a ****flinging contest between apologism for a given person's favorite imperialist country, whether that country be the People's Republic of China or the United States. And pushing the lab "hypothesis" is very much part of that ****flinging because it only serves as rhetorical deflection.
This goes back to my initial question. "What consent would be manufactured?" In building this post I pointed out the obvious interest of western media to frame the event negatively in order to rally public opinion against China. However, that is not the most important motive of this manufacture.
The most dangerous thing to this socio-economic system right now would not be if the lab speculation were wrong nor right. No, the most dangerous thing would be if the framing of the conservation entered into a reasoned discussion on human encroachment on ecosystems because the implications of that discussion endanger all stakeholders of power in this society internationally.