3 ms·

Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is

by mitjak 16y ago

Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. The old "life would be so much easier without this little nature's imperfection" attitude has brought some unintended and tragic consequences more than once.

mtomczak 16y ago
Thanks to the general availability and utilization of vaccines against smallpox and polio, massive improvements in sanitation and emergency response, and long-term cardiac therapy, the death rate due to cancers is radically up. Cancer is a horrible disesase. Which one of those changes should we not have made to end up in the situation we're in today?
- mitjak 16y ago
  What causes cancer outside of factors brought about by human intervention?
anamax 16y ago
> Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. There are always such factors. Take the choice whether to have a child. Said child may be the next Hitler, so clearly it's wrong to have a child. But wait, said child may be the person who stops the next Hitler, so there's almost an obligation to have said child. Pointing out that there are unknowns is useless. More to the point, it isn't an argument for or against anything because it applies just as well to all options.
jerf 16y ago
No, it doesn't stand. It proves too much. It proves you should never take any action, and for that matter also that "no action" isn't acceptable either. This is not a useful thing to "prove". See also the logically-unsound "precautionary principle", which has the exact same problem for the exact same reason.
- Tichy 16y ago
  He only said "what could possibly go wrong", hardly the same as saying "it should never, ever be attempted". It would be interesting to hear some success stories in contrast? I suppose stuff like importing potatoes would count?

by mitjak 16y ago

mtomczak 16y ago

Thanks to the general availability and utilization of vaccines against smallpox and polio, massive improvements in sanitation and emergency response, and long-term cardiac therapy, the death rate due to cancers is radically up. Cancer is a horrible disesase. Which one of those changes should we not have made to end up in the situation we're in today?

mitjak 16y ago
What causes cancer outside of factors brought about by human intervention?

anamax 16y ago

> Agreed, but the main point still stands: there can definitely be factors outside of our knowledge and control which we will simply not be aware of until it is too late. There are always such factors. Take the choice whether to have a child. Said child may be the next Hitler, so clearly it's wrong to have a child. But wait, said child may be the person who stops the next Hitler, so there's almost an obligation to have said child. Pointing out that there are unknowns is useless. More to the point, it isn't an argument for or against anything because it applies just as well to all options.

jerf 16y ago

No, it doesn't stand. It proves too much. It proves you should never take any action, and for that matter also that "no action" isn't acceptable either. This is not a useful thing to "prove". See also the logically-unsound "precautionary principle", which has the exact same problem for the exact same reason.

Tichy 16y ago
He only said "what could possibly go wrong", hardly the same as saying "it should never, ever be attempted". It would be interesting to hear some success stories in contrast? I suppose stuff like importing potatoes would count?