4 ms·

Yes, send them to treatment even before they do anything wrong. This is a line from basically every future dystopian nightmare ever.

• mc32 7y ago
  It depends. If it’s somewhat deterministic like disease, and there are no adverse effects or if there are they are overridden by the benefits then I don’t see why not investigate that avenue. Obviously if it remains guesswork then the reason to pursue this option doesn’t exist.
  • RHSeeger 7y ago
    > there are no adverse effects Both real life and those dystopian movies have taught me that this is _never_ the case. There's literally a 0% chance of no adverse side effects.
    • huherto 7y ago
      To be fear, that needs to happen in movies. Otherwise it would be a boring movie if everything goes right.
  • pdkl95 7y ago
    > and there are no adverse effects Who gets to define what counts as an "adverse effect"? > if there are they are overridden by the benefits Benefit to who? You? Society in general (by what definition of "society")? The doctor that defiantly isn't getting free lunches and other "gifts" from the company selling the treatment? The person receiving the treatment? How are you judging the magnitude of the beneficial and harmful effects? Who gets to define what type of arguments are allowed to be considered when making that judgment?