33
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Aug 2026
33 points (83.7% liked)
World News
41311 readers
509 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Its Chauvinism to imply that only the USA uses scientific breakthroughs for some evil agenda (in this case, saying that they are going to use this to "make viruses to destroy their enemies").
If I had said that about China, that would also be Chauvinist.
Would it not?
Scientific breakthroughs in research and development help all of humanity.
But these aren't equivalent due to the vastly different histories of the 2 countries. Taking history into account isn't chauvinism. Is it not perfectly reasonable to be suspicious of the country that pardoned Unit731 and then used their knowledge to terrorise Vietnam and Korea with chemical and biological weapons (many that have lasting effects to this date), that employed biological terrorism on its own minority populations such as through the Tuskegee syphilis study or operation big buzz?
Not trusting a serial killer with a loaded shotgun isn't chauvinism, it's common sense.
Edit: Just to add that if America did not have the history it does it would be chauvinism however it does and as such it is only reasonable to be sceptical.
So how about Russia? Who is also making advancements in AI.
They have a very long history of chemical weapons use and have even recently increased funding for their chemical weapon program. And have even been accused by the OPCW (which China is a member of) by using chemical weapons right now, in Ukraine.
Would it still not be chauvinist to imply that they are going to use all those scientific advances being made to "eradicate their enemies" even despite this long history of using chemical weapons?
Or is this distinction only made for the USA?
For the sake of your hypothetical if we say this article was instead about modern Russia leveraging ai for chemical research that had a clear through line to weaponization, I would call anyone who thought they weren't exploring those avenues incredibly naive.