8 ms·

long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar.

long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.

Retra 8y ago
It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- johnisgood 8y ago
  The substance of interest is psychedelics. According to what we know, they are pretty safe. Additionally, it is most definitely not "unnecessarily". Introspection, personal growth, and so on is not "unnecessary" to me and to many people. If it is to you, that is fine by me. Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
  - Retra 8y ago
    I don't have any serious qualms with psychedelics. I have a problem with someone arguing that they should be legal solely on the basis that risk is acceptable. By that argument, I should like to wave a loaded gun in your face. But that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk, so obviously there is more to the question of regulation than what risks people feel like they want to take.
  - atomical 8y ago
    I think you're focusing on safe from an LD50 perspective? My comment addressed the question of significant changes to the mind.
- nopacience 8y ago
  Lots of people have died in car accidents. Many people have died because of knifes. Many people have died because went to the wrong place where wild animals were hungry. What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier. Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room. You are not a genius.
  - Retra 8y ago
    I literally do not understand what you are responding to right now.
- Fricken 8y ago
  In theory humankind can persist indefinitely, so long as we don't fuck it up, but we are fucking it up, we're destroying the life support systems that sustain us. That's unacceptable risk. Individuals on the other hand don't live forever, the risk of death is 100% for everyone, so individual risk isn't something we need to get uptight about.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

long term implications of a living human being is death. the live human being will create pollution, will kill a couple of ants, might become a murder, a liar. Life is risky.

Retra 8y ago

It's unnecessarily more risky when you do stupid things. You can't use a little risk to justify arbitrarily more risk, you have to make an argument based on the value produced.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
johnisgood 8y ago
The substance of interest is psychedelics. According to what we know, they are pretty safe. Additionally, it is most definitely not "unnecessarily". Introspection, personal growth, and so on is not "unnecessary" to me and to many people. If it is to you, that is fine by me. Not sure what you are referring to by "stupid things" though.
- Retra 8y ago
  I don't have any serious qualms with psychedelics. I have a problem with someone arguing that they should be legal solely on the basis that risk is acceptable. By that argument, I should like to wave a loaded gun in your face. But that would be a stupid and unnecessary risk, so obviously there is more to the question of regulation than what risks people feel like they want to take.
- atomical 8y ago
  I think you're focusing on safe from an LD50 perspective? My comment addressed the question of significant changes to the mind.
nopacience 8y ago
Lots of people have died in car accidents. Many people have died because of knifes. Many people have died because went to the wrong place where wild animals were hungry. What is the solution in this case ? All the situations here are riskier. Many people die after they wake up and leave their room. So its risky to leave their room. You are not a genius.
- Retra 8y ago
  I literally do not understand what you are responding to right now.
Fricken 8y ago
In theory humankind can persist indefinitely, so long as we don't fuck it up, but we are fucking it up, we're destroying the life support systems that sustain us. That's unacceptable risk. Individuals on the other hand don't live forever, the risk of death is 100% for everyone, so individual risk isn't something we need to get uptight about.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]