Тег: State regulation

While officials fear it, genes break down: why deregulation of biotech is a question of humanity’s survival

Представь, что ты едешь по трассе на старой машине, и внезапно понимаешь, что тормоза давно не работают. Сначала кажется, что всё в порядке: ты просто спокойно катишься, скорость не очень высокая, погода хорошая, ветерок в лицо. Но впереди – огромная бетонная стена, и с каждым метром она ближе. Примерно так сейчас выглядит ситуация с генетикой человека.

Когда-то естественный отбор беспощадно отсекал вредные мутации — сурово, конечно, но эффективно. Если твои гены были совсем уж плохи, то детей у тебя, скорее всего, не было. Так человечество поддерживало здоровье поколений веками. Потом мы построили цивилизацию, создали медицину и сделали прекрасную вещь: теперь выживает почти все. Но у этой прекрасной медали есть обратная сторона — генетический груз. Каждое поколение накапливает всё больше мелких мутаций, которые раньше бы природа просто не пропустила. Теперь же они спокойно передаются дальше. Ты и не заметишь этого сразу: дети пока рождаются вполне здоровыми. Но статистика уже фиксирует медленный, но верный рост наследственных заболеваний.

Например, сто лет назад диабет 1-го типа был приговором, сейчас — не более чем неудобством. Замечательно? Да! Только вот гены, ответственные за болезнь, теперь свободно гуляют в наших потомках. Мутации растут с каждым поколением как снежный ком. Пока что это не критично, но через сотню-другую лет можно прийти к тому, что каждая новая жизнь станет лотереей с плохими шансами. Сюжет фильма «Идиократия» станет реальностью.

Посмотри на породистых собак — пример вырождения наглядный и печальный. Когда люди решили «отключить» естественный отбор и занялись селекцией по внешнему виду, здоровье пород пошло под откос. Бульдоги задыхаются, у такс спины ломаются от минимальной нагрузки, а лабрадоры страдают от артритов и ожирения. Нам стоит задуматься, хотим ли мы такого же будущего для человечества.

Есть ли решение? Конечно, есть. Генная инженерия и биотехнологии уже готовы нам помочь. Генная терапия — это уже не фантастика, а реальность. С её помощью уже сегодня спасают детей от редчайших смертельных болезней, таких как спинальная мышечная атрофия и серповидно-клеточная анемия. И это только начало: потенциально, с помощью генотерапии можно исправлять десятки наследственных заболеваний прямо в клетках уже живущего человека. Но если мы смотрим дальше в будущее, то самое перспективное направление — это редактирование генов эмбрионов. Представь, что можно не просто лечить болезнь у отдельного человека, а полностью исключить её из генофонда навсегда. Одно точечное исправление в зародыше — и больше никакой проблемы не будет ни у ребёнка, ни у его потомков. Такие технологии уже успешно тестируются на животных, и технически они полностью готовы к применению на человеке.

But here, the state enters the game – or, as it should be called correctly, “stationary bandit.” The state decided: no, friends, don’t rush. Let’s put ten thousand bans, regulations, licenses, and bureaucratic filters on all biotechnology. Want to get treated? Get medications for a million dollars per injection, even if its production cost is negligible. Want to correct a genetic error in advance, at the embryonic stage? No, wait, it’s “unethical,” not the time for this. The result is absurd: humanity is rushing headlong into a wall, but the only mechanic capable of fixing the brakes has been locked up in a garage with ten padlocks – and that’s just the beginning. Instead of giving science and business freedom, the state chooses to over-insure. Just in case it gets worse. Although it already does every year.

Why should we wait decades while bureaucrats and officials allow scientists to use gene technologies for the benefit of all? Why do we agree to let the only arbitrator of our future be an endless ethics commission, which doesn’t even have its own vision of the future?

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The State Suffocates 23andMe and Kills Biotech’s Future

Once upon a time, the test from 23andMe was like an iPhone in the world of DNA: spit into a tube – and within a couple of weeks you’d know what diseases threatened you, your caffeine gene dependence, and who your ancestors were. For $99, without doctors or hospitals, it was a revolution. After launching in 2007, the company enjoyed wild success, everyone was thrilled, people bought tests by the handful, and the company received significant investments. It seemed like a victory.

But then the American regulator, FDA, entered the picture and said: “Hold on. Where’s the evidence that your tests are accurate? What if people don’t properly understand their test results and harm themselves?” As a result, in 2013, 23andMe was banned from displaying health reports, leaving only mundane data and genealogy. Consider it like Netflix being left without series – just lists of actors. The company attempted to survive and dance with bureaucracy: approving tests one by one, waiting years, rewriting interfaces. In 2017, they were finally allowed to restore some functions – but not 254 diseases, as before, only 10. And the cost of the test became no longer $99, but $199.

Clearly, this looked far less attractive to consumers. Of course, there were still hopes, and in 2021, 23andMe went public with a valuation of $6 billion. However, by 2024 – a collapse of 98%, threats of delisting, layoffs. Additionally, a hacking incident occurred, millions of genetic profiles leaked into the darknet. The final act was bankruptcy in 2025.

And now the question for you: where was the consumer within this story? Did they want to know about the risks of Alzheimer’s disease? They did. Could they adequately interpret the figures? Perhaps. But the state decided that they weren’t ready, that it was premature, that it was dangerous. And tightened the screws because “it’s safer that way.” The problem wasn’t solely with the FDA. In Europe, specifically in Germany and France, direct genetic tests were completely prohibited – meaning individuals didn’t have the right to learn their own DNA without a doctor. Just like in old times when the library was locked and guarded.

The 23andMe company wasn’t perfect. Yes, it experimented, monetized data, made errors. But it was killed not by competitors or the market, but by the regulatory machinery that slowed down every innovation, demanded proof where there was progress, and obstructed millions of people from learning more about themselves. And one could have done differently – one could have trusted a person. Provide information with the note “not a diagnosis,” as do Google and Wikipedia. One could have created a market with competition, with ratings, with development. Instead – fear, bans and “it can’t be yet.”

All of this applies not only to 23andMe. This is the story of the future of biotech. Gene therapies, personalized medicine, prevention based on DNA – all of this requires freedom of action and flexible management that helps, rather than suffocates. But for now, unfortunately, reality is such: technologies are running ahead, while regulators stand with “stop” flags.

Imagine a world where you can find out about your weaknesses in advance and take measures on time. Where a doctor treats not symptoms, but the causes, based on your unique genetics. Where diseases can be prevented, not just treated. This is the future that could have already arrived if the stationary bandit had loosened its grip just a little. Instead, we live in a world where breakthroughs constantly hit a bureaucratic wall. Startups and innovation are forced to prove the obvious for years while technology becomes outdated and investors’ money melts away.

And as a final thought. Whose information is it – a person’s genes? Who should decide whether a person can be informed about their risks, mutations, chances? The person himself or the official in a tie who thinks that “the citizen won’t understand”?

The history of 23andMe is not just the fall of a startup. It’s a reminder: freedom, including genetic freedom, is not given easily, it must also be fought for. Otherwise, we risk remaining in a world where technology exists, but cannot be used. A world where the future is constantly postponed due to endless “noes.” Let’s not allow this to become our reality!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Stop fearing meteorites!

Imagine a person who puts on a ski suit on a hot summer day because “what if it snows?” Yes, safety is important, but if you over-insure yourself always and everywhere, you risk looking strange at best, and suffering from heatstroke at worst. Of course, as libertarians, we adore freedom of choice and personal responsibility. But when it comes to designing a product, a policy, or another “revolutionary” startup, many suddenly turn into apostles of insurance against the universal flood, literally screaming: “What if a meteorite hits? Let’s urgently triple the budget for a titanium dome!”.

But let’s try it! The problem? Resources are finite. If you pour everything into one parameter, others shrink like a student before final exams. As in the classic tale of the fortress: you can build walls two meters thick, or you can dig a moat, or you can maintain a garrison. Do everything at once? Only if you have the bank account of Saudi Arabia. For everyone else, it is an inevitable choice of only one option.

Evolution explained the rule of balance long ago. Look at the peacock: the tail is glamorous, but it flies like a sack of potatoes. The peacock invested its “evolutionary points” in marketing rather than in the R&D of migratory aviation. Or the ostrich: it gave up fighter-jet wings, but in exchange, it runs like a Formula 1 car. To each their own, but none of them tried to be Batman and Superman simultaneously—it’s too expensive.

Now let’s move from the savannah to the modern world. Take, for example, government structures that love to “play it safe.” In the pursuit of total security and control, they create cumbersome laws and regulations, turning life into a bureaucratic hell. The result? The economy becomes “heavier,” less agile, and the citizens become unhappy. All resources go toward fighting imaginary and rarely occurring risks, while startups flee to neighboring jurisdictions where they are allowed to make mistakes—and grow.

It’s the same song in business. Companies that are afraid to take risks and spend all their strength and money on insurance and re-insurance almost never become market leaders. They are overtaken by those who know how to take reasonable risks and understand that it’s impossible to prepare for everything at once. Want absolute server uptime? Pour money into redundancy, like into a “breakthrough” NFT in the winter of 2021. But be prepared that nothing will be left for UX, marketing, and salaries.

While you are building a bunker for a zombie apocalypse, your competitors are quietly conquering the market. And if the apocalypse does happen, it might look quite different from what you expected. And to hell with it—let the zombies worry now about how to deal with entrepreneurs who are used to taking risks and adapting faster than anyone else!

Of course, you cannot “ignore risks.” Calculating and considering them is very important. But do not become slaves to a single nightmare. The paradox: the more you cling to the “worst-case” scenario, the closer the “second-worst” scenario sails in—the one for which there was neither time nor nerves. The main thing is to remember the balance. Preparing for the worst-case scenario is useful and perhaps even necessary, but if you bet only on that, there is a great chance you will miss a mass of opportunities and be left with nothing. Life, economics, evolution—these are all games with limited resources. Success awaits those who understand that it is impossible to be ready for absolutely everything.

So there’s no need to wear a foil helmet; it’s better to check the weather, choose a moderate sunscreen, and go ahead—start building. Yes, you might get splashed by the first puddle. But the alternative is living in a spacesuit, where you can’t even drink coffee. And if a meteorite does happen to fall tomorrow… at least we lived the day without extra titanium on our heads.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Can a free market rid us of oligarchs?

It is highly likely that you have frequently encountered the question of oligarchic growth and capital accumulation. It may also have arisen the question of whether this problem could be solved with decentralization and deregulation of the market. Of course, we immediately note that no one can offer a miraculous and magical solution to all of humanity’s problems. But let’s still look at how a free market and genuine competition can ease – if not completely solve – this long-standing disease of the economy.

The essence of oligarchy is simple – capital attracts capital. Money begets money, as they say. The richer you become, the easier it becomes to get even richer. Eventually, all large business begins to resemble a closed club where entry for an ordinary person is forbidden. Many may now find this clear – it’s necessary to strictly regulate the activities of the wealthy and take away part of their funds. But if you dig deeper, state regulations often help them more. They not only do not fight against oligarchy but also create favorable conditions for its flourishing. Why? Because large companies have the resources to hire an army of lawyers, accountants, and lobbyists who skillfully circumvent all barriers. Meanwhile, small entrepreneurs drown in bureaucratic jungles.

So why can deregulation help? Imagine: a market is a vast ocean. State regulations are artificial obstacles, reefs and islands around which it’s convenient to build personal kingdoms. If they were removed, the vast ocean would become much harder to divide into cozy “corners.” Free competition is like a storm that constantly breaks up any monopolies and prevents them from consolidating. To compete – means to live, to stand still – to drown. Remember how the internet destroyed traditional monopolies: taxi services, media, retail. New players emerged – Uber, YouTube, Amazon – and turned everything upside down. Yes, now they are new giants, but they appeared precisely because old regulations did not keep pace with technology.

Decentralization is another tool for protection against oligarchy, a new level. This is not just the cancellation of rules, but the transfer of control over resources and assets from a group of “chosen” people to the hands of many market participants. Recall cryptocurrencies and blockchain technologies. Their main idea: to replace centralized control with transparent rules that cannot be changed for someone specific. As a result, a system is built in which no participant can gain an advantage simply by virtue of their position or connections in government. Decentralization destroys the very ground for oligarchy. It’s impossible to build an empire on control over something that doesn’t belong to anyone.

But this is not a perfect pill – a free market and decentralization are not an absolute cure for greed and dishonesty. Some people will continue to try to create cartels, conspiracies, and fraudulent schemes. But without state patronage, without bureaucratic “quiet harbors,” it will be much harder for them.

Let’s wrap it up: yes, deregulation and decentralization aren’t perfect. But they definitely deprive the oligarchy of its main trump card – state support. They don’t just treat symptoms; they eliminate the very source of the disease. A free market is a continuous battle of ideas, products, and talent, where no one can rest on their laurels. Of course, the decision is yours – what to choose. In any case, it’s more interesting to live in a world where everyone has a chance to win, not just those sitting closer to the state trough.

Волюнтарист, Битарх

Privacy That Is Too Expensive: How the Good Intentions of Officials Are Destroying the Internet

Do you know the difference between good intentions and actual results? Naturally, it’s the number of ruined lives. When the EU and USA launched GDPR and CCPA to protect personal data, it all sounded beautiful: “We will protect your data from malicious corporations!” Russia, with its Federal Law No. 152, also jumped on board with the idea that they would protect citizens from digital bandits and Western agents. The concept looked decent, but what happened in the end?

Paradox one: your data is still floating around the web like a cat on the rooftops in spring. Leaks? Every year they break records! Just imagine: under GDPR in Europe, more than 160 thousand leaks occurred in the first year and a half. In Russia, the situation is practically farcical: the data of nearly all adult citizens has already been leaked online. What kind of protection are we talking about in this case?

Paradox two: the laws are supposedly against market giants, but they are the ones who came out on top. Google and Facebook’s share of the advertising market only grew after the introduction of GDPR. Why? They simply have enough money for an army of lawyers and technicians that others cannot afford. Moreover, compliance with GDPR or CCPA became a nightmare for small businesses and startups; many simply couldn’t handle it and shut down.

Paradox three: instead of growth in trust, we received only irritation from endless cookie banners and permission requests for every single breath. People don’t read—they just click “I Agree.” It’s like those bank terms and conditions that nobody reads, only to be surprised later: “How did I end up owing 5 thousand rubles a month for account maintenance?”

Another unpleasant point is data localization. In Russia, the law requires storing citizens’ data on local servers, allegedly to protect information from Western intelligence agencies. The result? Instead of Google or LinkedIn, Russians got local analogues with questionable security and low service quality. It’s like being forced to buy bread from only one store, with the justification that it’s “safer.” But when there is no choice, quality usually drops and prices rise.

There are also amusing examples: many American websites simply blocked access from the EU after GDPR, deciding that European users were “too expensive” to maintain. Imagine you want to visit your favorite resource, and it tells you: “Sorry, you are too expensive a customer, goodbye!” Absurd? Yes, but such is the new reality of data protection.

So what should we do? A libertarian approach, instead of suffocating state regulation, offers common sense and market mechanisms. First and foremost, these are voluntary standards instead of bureaucracy. Let businesses develop effective data protection rules themselves. And if consumers don’t like something—they will go to competitors who respect privacy. After all, if a company screws up, the market will punish it, customers will leave, and profits will fall. This works more effectively than any Roskomnadzor inspection or fines.

But what will help best is the use of technological solutions instead of paperwork. For example, end-to-end encryption, where access to your messages and files is available only to the sender and the recipient. Even if the data falls into the wrong hands, the hacker will simply see a meaningless set of characters. Another important approach is data minimization. Why collect every single piece of data if only the bare minimum is needed?! For most web services, a login and password are enough. The less data, the fewer risks. And also—decentralized storage. Instead of one large database that lures hackers, information can be distributed across many independent points, making the attackers’ lives many times harder. In short, technology allows for the protection of privacy far more effectively than government laws and endless inspections.

As we can see, a good intention does not equal a good law. Officials wanted the best, but they got what they usually get. Let’s trust people and business instead of bureaucrats and the instructions they impose!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

The City of Diaspar – how excessive control turns a utopia into stagnation

In Arthur C. Clarke’s novel “The City and the Stars” (1956), the majestic city of Diaspar is described as the last bastion of humanity in the distant future. Its inhabitants live in luxury and safety, with practically eternal lives. But this stability comes at a high price. The city is completely closed off: no one leaves its walls, and nothing truly new ever happens. Diaspar is a “high-tech monument to stagnation,” where millions of years pass without change, and the spirit of adventure and discovery has been lost. It sounds like science fiction. But don’t you think our modern world is moving in the same direction? Let’s analyze how this manifests in different spheres of our society.

First, let’s consider the aspect of comfort and technology. In Diaspar, the needs of the residents (food, housing, entertainment) are fully met; access to high-tech entertainment and “virtual worlds” is practically unlimited; people live almost forever thanks to regeneration from “memory banks.” In the developed countries of the modern world, there is also a high level of domestic comfort—stable supplies of food, services, medical care, and housing conditions; the digital environment (social networks, virtual reality, computer games) can “lock” a person within their own informational “bubble” reality; scientists are working on life-extension technologies. Of course, one should strive for high technology and comfort, but it must not be forgotten that the absence of encounters with the challenges of the external environment prevents a person from developing resilience and flexibility.

It is important to pay attention to the fear of change and self-isolation. The residents of Diaspar are convinced that there is nothing beyond the city walls, and if there is, it must be hostile; exploration of the outside world has ceased; at the level of public consciousness, there is a taboo on the very act of leaving the city. In modern society, the fear of the “alien” is also quite common (due to immigration, cultural and political contradictions, terrorism, etc.); in some cases, states or communities erect “informational,” economic, and political barriers, striving to maintain internal stability; sometimes an excessive desire for a safe and “sterile” environment leads to a rejection of openness, flexibility, and dialogue. But when a society begins to perceive the entire external environment as a threat, it closes in on itself and loses the creative impulse for development.

Even more important is the factor of the loss of risk. In Diaspar, practically everything is under control: from the climate to human lives (immortality, regeneration); social and personal “risks” are minimized: any mistake can be “overwritten,” and any danger is excluded in advance. In modern society, more and more spheres are being automated; society increasingly seeks to insure itself against all risks—complex legal frameworks, security measures, censorship of potentially “traumatizing” topics—while the element of challenge and overcoming, which were once an integral part of growth and development, is lost. The common point is this: in striving for “zero risk,” one can miss the very essence of the human experience—the ability to go beyond the boundaries of the known.

The factor of the “bubble” of self-sufficiency and global challenges is also dangerous. Diaspar closed in on itself; people do not even imagine what resources or threats might exist beyond its limits. In the modern world, many people are not concerned with global problems (demographic collapse, environmental degradation) as long as everything is fine in their “local comfort zone.” Thus, by living in a “bubble” of stability, society becomes vulnerable to sudden crises because it stops observing reality in its fullness.

Personal freedom and responsibility are the best remedy for stagnation. If people are given more autonomy, many will act reasonably and creatively. Yes, freedom is a risk, a chaos of possibilities. But development and the energy of life go hand in hand with risk. Diaspar chose absolute security at the cost of stagnation. We, however, can choose freedom and forward movement. The world does not necessarily have to be either comfortable or alive—a balance is possible if we do not forget the value of freedom.

Voluntarist, Bitarch

How investment restrictions strengthen the power and wealth of elites

Imagine that you are a talented, smart and, most importantly, hardworking person. Perhaps even financially savvy: you read books about Buffett, follow a few investor bloggers, and even know the difference between a bond and a stock. In short, you’re a winner, ready to take everything life has to offer.

But then the state gently pats you on the shoulder and says: “Hey there, buddy, stop-stop! You’re too poor to invest in interesting things. Why don’t you just put your money in the bank at 4% and don’t make a fuss.” Sound familiar? Welcome to the world of restrictions for “non-qualified investors.”

What is actually happening? In many countries (USA, Russia, EU), a roughly similar scheme is in place: authorities divide investors into two castes — “quals” (those with plenty of money and the right papers) and “non-quals” (everyone else). Quals can invest anywhere: venture startups, hedge funds, IPOs, cryptocurrencies, complex derivatives — in short, any juicy opportunities with the potential for hundreds of percent growth.

But for an ordinary person, even if their IQ is higher than that of many millionaires, the road there is closed. True, in some cases, people have found workarounds through cryptocurrency: thanks to it, one can invest in startups and projects that would otherwise be completely inaccessible due to formal restrictions. The state is protecting us, mere mortals, from risks. Like, just in case — what if we lose our money and become even poorer?

But here is the paradox: casinos and betting shops — please, go ahead. Lotteries — always welcome! Loans at 25% per annum — “dear, come in, we’re glad to see you!”. But a startup by your acquaintance — no way, too risky, you’re not a millionaire to invest in such things! Ironic, isn’t it?

Such restrictions lead to a banal financial apartheid: the rich gain access to the juiciest investments and become even richer, while the middle class and the poor are forced to settle for crumbs — deposits and low-yield bonds. In the USA, for example, only 13% of households fall into the category of accredited investors. And it is they who get access to venture deals that turn 1,000 dollars into a million. Meanwhile, the average John Smith has to sadly watch the success of others, settling for boring S&P 500 ETFs.

Russia has gone even further: “non-quals” are completely forbidden from investing in foreign stocks. Tesla, Apple, Nvidia? Forget it! Your lot is Gazprom shares, a deposit with a yield below inflation, and a state pension. In short, stay quiet and dream of a salary increase at the factory. And Europe? There, regulators have decided that people “do not have a legitimate need” to invest in crypto-derivatives or use high leverage. This is like telling a person: “You do not have a legitimate need to earn more.” Thank you, so very caring!

Who benefits from this? Imagine: if a person earns a lot from investments, they become financially independent. They are no longer afraid of the boss, layoffs, or a crisis. They gain money, time, and the most terrifying thing for the authorities — the ability to think about politics. It is not in the interests of the authorities for the middle class to get rich quickly and stop depending on a salary and the state. After all, as long as you slave away from morning till night at a job you hate, paying off loans and trying to make ends meet, you certainly have no time for rallies and protests. No time to wonder who up there is stealing the budget — you have to feed the family and pay the mortgage! Thus, investment restrictions play into the hands not only of the super-rich (who maintain exclusive investment opportunities) but also of states, for whom it is easier to manage a tired and economically dependent population.

What to do and how to live on? The problem is not that investing is dangerous. The problem is that the state has decided that you are a child, incapable of making a decision about your own money. If a new Apple or Google appears tomorrow, you will be the last to know, when the shares have already hit the exchange and grown dozens of times. Until then, the “quals” will skim the cream. It is time to return the right to take risks!

Voluntarist, Bitarch

Biohacking and the freedom to conduct experiments on oneself

Throughout history, people have experimented and performed various procedures on themselves. They tried different foods and medical remedies, underwent diverse rituals, and so on. In some cases, such experimentation even had significant scientific value. For example, one article cites 465 instances where researchers tested disease pathogens, tried new drugs, or performed other procedures on themselves. And although 8 of these cases ended in death, indicating a certain level of risk in such experiments, the vast majority (89%) led to positive results—confirmation of previously proposed hypotheses or the acquisition of valuable data.

Of course, today there is a negative attitude toward such experimentation, and toward independent intervention in the human body and health in general. State regulation has played a huge role in this, imposing strict restrictions on what a person can and cannot do, often insisting and deciding on behalf of ordinary people that this is allegedly safer. The state has done everything to ensure that biomedical experiments and procedures do not take place outside of approved institutions.

However, none of this has prevented the existence of biohacking. First of all, it should be noted that many means for its implementation are very common and not regulated at all, being simply bioactive supplements. No one can forbid you, based on current research or biohacking books, from purchasing certain vitamins or nootropics and taking them in the specified dosages and manner, let alone modifying your lifestyle or diet based on experimental data or even hypothetical assumptions. By the way, a good collection of useful tools and practices can be found in Daria Babkina’s book “Brain Biohacking: How to Manage Neurochemistry, Emotions, and Intelligence,” which was released this year.

But the matter doesn’t end there. Modern technologies make it possible to organize entire genetic laboratories at home, and there are already ready-made solutions for this. For example, for just 3,000 dollars, you can purchase a home laboratory with all the additions for bioengineering from “The Odin” (and educational kits for simple experiments cost only hundreds of dollars). You don’t have to go far for instructions on what exactly to do with such a laboratory—you can simply replicate step-by-step what has been done in various studies. This is exactly what one biohacker did—whose video you can see here—to correct his lactose intolerance; he simply recreated a gene therapy drug from an experiment on mice and tested it on himself. The result was excellent—a single pill allows for the free consumption of dairy products for over a year without experiencing any negative consequences whatsoever.

Considering how deeply modern science is stuck in countless regulations and the need to wait for state approval, sometimes even for decades, biohacking can give a boost to progress in the field of biotechnology, especially if we are talking about solutions that people need here and now to treat their diseases and various conditions that cause discomfort but do not yet have a sufficiently effective solution among those approved and allowed on the market by the state regulator.

Is there a danger in this? Naturally, among those engaged in biohacking, undesirable outcomes will sometimes occur. But people have every right to voluntarily assume such a risk, and an attempt to introduce a total ban on self-experimentation would not be justified, and to a large extent, would not even be feasible. Even now, there are fully approved activities that carry huge risks, such as extreme sports. And if a person can choose to do base jumping, rock climbing, or motocross, then why can’t they choose to control the biochemical processes of their own body, or even edit their genome?

Voluntarist, Bitarch