My apologies, I was skimming initially and, from just the headings it appeared to fit that pattern I've seen everywhere lately.

I agree with you that upon closer reading, this hypothetical JVN isn't arguing for a ban, but you could certainly read

> He goes on to say that a ban would have to be worldwide to work

> What safeguard remains? Apparently only day-to-day — or perhaps year-to-year — opportunistic measures, a long sequence of small, correct decisions. [...]

and

> The only safety possible is relative, and it lies in an intelligent exercise of day-to-day judgment.

as an argument for regulation.

And it does feel like a doomer narrative.

> For progress there is no cure. Any attempt to find automatically safe channels for the present explosive variety of progress must lead to frustration.

Also, while we glorify JVN's intellect, let's not forget that all his reasoning resulted in him publicly arguing for the nuclear annihilation of a vast country of people.