- A new Science paper on “risks of mirror life” (DOI: 10.1126/science.ads9158) and Jason Crawford’s LessWrong post sparked debate over whether mirror-image bacteria could evolve metabolites that act as persistent, broad-spectrum poisons against normal-chirality life without harming themselves.  
- Participants argued that even non-pathogenic mirror microbes could secrete mirror vitamins or other small molecules that subtly disrupt eukaryotic enzymes, creating an ecological “persistent organic pollutant” problem distinct from classic pathogenicity.  
- Concern was voiced that any serious program to develop mirror-protein or mirror-peptide therapeutics would inevitably incentivize building fully mirror cells as production platforms, making therapeutic research itself a driver of existential risk.  
- Skeptics countered that mirror‐cell synthesis is still centuries away—only ~5 of thousands of bacterial proteins have been made in mirror form—suggesting the current alarm is grant-hype rather than imminent danger.  
- The discussion pivoted to governance: whether to restrict funding for mirror-life research versus pursuing general countermeasures such as advanced phage therapy.  
- A side thread explored the “minimum viable protein set” needed for a synthetic cell, noting that several authors of the mirror-risk paper are already working on minimal-cell projects.  
- Broader existential themes emerged: the collapse of a recent rationalist/technologist commune (“it exploded due to cat-herding failure and mental illness”) was offered as a microcosm of future value-divergence risks among enhanced humans or superintelligent AI.  
- Participants questioned the assumption that greater intelligence will automatically produce convergent human-compatible values, suggesting instead “eternal strife, VR, black-hole diving, or accelerating away at light-speed” as possible outcomes.