10 ms·

What has happened to us as people that studies like this have become so rare? We can't understand this virus without taking on some level of risk.

Uberphallus 6y ago
I'd say human experimentation has become a big no-no. Pretty gnarly research has been done until the 70s, even 80s. Even for new drugs there are countless hoops to jump to get to the final human trials. Right now you can study infected individuals just fine, but you can't go around inoculating people with diseases, even if they're volunteers. One common pattern I've seen is that well known, old drugs, are either known to be ok for a pregnant woman, or not ok. But the bulk of drugs discovered since the 80s are "not advised unless necessary", "check with your doctor" and other variants of passing the hot potato.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  >and other variants of passing the hot potato. That's pretty much every aspect of society anymore. Few people will take responsibility if the option to pass it exists, in general.
spinach 6y ago
Would you yourself go to a concert at this time?
- haunter 6y ago
  In Germany? Yes. In the US? Absolutely not. I'm in Hungary and was at a jazz concert myself this weekend
  - Eldt 6y ago
    What do you think your chances of catching and spreading the virus are?
- vanilla-almond 6y ago
  Would you yourself go to a concert at this time? This socially-distanced outdoor concert in Newcastle (in the UK) doesn't seem too bad. Everyone has their own 'pod'. However, it's not suitable for indoor concerts and the extra logistics might make it too impractical even for outdoor concerts. Pic of the setup: https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1100,c_fill,g_auto,h_619,ar_16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200813074413-restricted-01-social-distanced-music-festival-intl-scli-0811.jpg https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1100,c_fill,g_aut... Here's a write-up of what it was like to attend: This is what it was like to attend the UK’s first ever socially distanced gig: https://thetab.com/uk/2020/08/14/this-is-what-it-was-like-to-attend-the-uks-first-ever-socially-distanced-concert-171256 https://thetab.com/uk/2020/08/14/this-is-what-it-was-like-to...
- tbronchain 6y ago
  Definitely. Wear a mask, wash your hands, try to keep some sort of distance with people, don't go if you feel sick and try taking care of your immune system as much as you can before/after. Expect people having some sort of respect and do the same. Outdoor events would be a much bigger yes compared to indoor (note: concerts doesn't mean stacked onto each other's). Of course, tests must be ubiquitous and this shouldn't happen while in an area having a peak of the epidemy. Restricting contacts with fragile people would also be wise. I've been to hundreds of concerts/events and rarely been sick after one. Risks to catch a disease are in my opinion not higher than public transports or a crowded beach and probably lower than bars in general. We need to stop this non-sense.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    There's something innate about shaming people who do different things. People are feeding off of panic and constant dread. If you don't affirm their apocalypse delusions you'll be shamed. You'll be told attending a concert or even wanting to is a sign you're a selfish misanthrope and idiot. They could just indefinitely stay locked in their home if they feel the risk is that grave...but no, they'll stop at nothing to extend their agoraphobia to everyone.
  - patrickk 6y ago
    > don't go if you feel sick Sadly, selfish people will abuse this. They'll go even if they feel sick, likely justifying it as "but I already bought my ticket". Asymptomatic people will also increase the risk. > Of course, tests must be ubiquitous and this shouldn't happen while in an area having a peak of the epidemy. Anecdotally, a doctor I went to recently told me that the standard swab test is likely to be ruled invalid in the near future, he referenced a study that should be published soon. So, we will be flying blind if large (indoor) events re-open.
- matz1 6y ago
  I'm not a music fan but if I were I absolutely will go. The risk are minimal. The virus spread easily but not that dangerous. In fact I've been living my life as normal as I could possibly do all these times.
  - dboreham 6y ago
    The issue isn't the risk to yourself, which is minimal. The problem is that spreading the virus widely (which seems easy to do at crowded events, precise transmission model not yet known) ultimately results in a bunch of other people somewhere in the future ending up in hospital or dead.
    - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
      How many people have you killed if you were ever infected with flu or some other airborne virus? This thinking is absurd.
      - rorykoehler 6y ago
        A champions league game was the source of a major spike in both Italy and Spain and ended up killing thousands.
        gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        By that logic, China killed a million ppl?
        rorykoehler 6y ago
        I expect more intellectual honesty and curiosity on this site tbh. Please don’t purposely reduce the quality of the experience here. Some context >The match is being called "Game Zero" because it was played just two days before the first positive case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Italy. The head of pulmonology at a Bergamo hospital, which is outside of Milan and the usual home of Atalanta, recently described the Champions League match as "a biological bomb." There were also about 2,500 Valencia fans in the stands for the match, and 35 percent of Valencia's team tested positive for the coronavirus a few weeks later. >Bergamo Mayor Giorgio Gori echoed that statement. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/coronavirus-how-a-champions-league-match-contributed-to-italys-covid-19-outbreak/ https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/coronavirus-how-a-cham... More sources. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA-Champions-League-Achtelfinal-Hinspiel_Atalanta_Bergamo_–_FC_Valencia_2020 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA-Champions-League-Achtelfi...
- lagadu 6y ago
  I've already been to concerts this month, so yea. Lots of Europe already restarted large gatherings.
addicted 6y ago
There is no way you could take “risks” like these a couple of months ago. We simply did not know enough about the virus at the time. Now we have improved treatment methods significantly, we know ways to drastically reduce the spread of the virus using simple mechanical strategies, and we are confident about the kind of people that are at the least risk. In Germany the virus is also subdued enough that even if something goes wrong, it won’t become a drastic situation immediately. The US isn’t there yet, but thanks to mask wearing and social distancing might be there in a few weeks. So once the conditions were feasible to do such studies, peop,e are doing such studies.
- ricardobeat 6y ago
  > we have improved treatment methods significantly Have they? I haven't seen anything in the news besides a few practices evolving (prone positioning, avoiding ventilation too early). > we know ways to drastically reduce the spread of the virus using simple mechanical strategies Masks, hygiene, disinfection, distancing, were all known and encouraged since March. We are almost entering September, and my impression is that there hasn't been any new discoveries, other than trial drugs or confirming earlier findings, since late May/June. If anything, you couldn't take those risks earlier because of public opinion, not any practical reasons.
  - taejo 6y ago
    Masks were discouraged by many governments in March, even if they were encouraged by others.
    - ricardobeat 6y ago
      That's besides the point; I'm arguing that "we simply did not know enough about the virus at the time" as said by the parent commenter is not really true, and probably irrelevant for why experiments like these did not happen before. For what's worth using facemasks is still being discouraged by the Dutch government as we speak...
  - darkerside 6y ago
wittyreference 6y ago
We developed ethics around clinical research. One of those principles is that if you’re going to actively expose people to something - to create a possible harm where there previously wasn’t one - you have to be honestly uncertain of the potential harm (eg, it’s ethical to give you a placebo vs experimental drug because I honestly don’t know if the drug will work). It’s unethical to -certainly- cause harm. In part that’s because, social dynamics and power structures being what they are, those “consenting” will skew towards the uneducated and powerless. In part, consent isn’t even relevant - in this example, if they ended up stoking the flames of contagion, they wouldn’t just affect the concert goers but, by definition, all those exposed to the concert goers. Amusingly, the above refers more to interventional studies - those with more than one arm. This doesn’t really have a control arm, or randomized assignment of people to exposure. It’s effectively an observational study - the sort of thing you don’t need to intentionally construct, but for the fact that people seem to not be going to concerts. So... did they have to construct concerts artificially because not enough were occurring naturally? Did they have to create a harm that didn’t exist to begin with? Will it even be insightful? They filtered for the young, which specifically ensures there’s less of a chain of transmission available. Considering Germany inspired so much of modern medical ethics work, it’s ironic to see them conduct such a study. I honestly wouldn’t have expected it. I’m sure the relevant experts and authorities beat these questions to death, but even so, I’d be awfully curious to see those deliberations and what justifications were ultimately considered adequate.
- nicoburns 6y ago
  We're not very consistent with this though. We consider it perfectly acceptable to put people in harms way as part of the armed forces. Even though the exact same demographic effects are in play.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - prepend 6y ago
    The armed forces aren’t a randomized trial. Many people go into harms way because of a necessary duty (firefighters, etc). The restrictions on medical trials is because of the power imbalance. If I take a job as a firefighter or soldier that’s different from me living my life and being enrolled in some study putting me at risk for harm.
sp332 6y ago
What has happened to us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Racism "Our estimates imply life expectancy at age 45 for black men fell by up to 1.4 years in response to the disclosure" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Lead_Paint_Study#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Lead_Paint_Study#Aft... "After the study ended, many poor, African-American children ended up with neurological disabilities as a result, often incurring permanent nervous damage." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateville_Penitentiary_Malaria_Study#Legacy_of_the_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateville_Penitentiary_Malari... "The international Nuremberg Code of human experimentation ethics, which resulted from the trials, contained clauses directly violated by the Stateville experiments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_trials_in_Puerto_Rico#Ethics_and_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_trials_in_Puerto... etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...
- usrusr 6y ago
  Well, strictly speaking this wasn't an unethical experiment in so far as that they tested for covid before, to make it safe, not after, to assess the damage. But it gives off a certain "scientific whaling" vibe, I can't help questioning the intentions.
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Stanley Milgram preformed an experiment that was incredibly valuable and has been replicated in many countries around the world. Variations of the experiment with different results helped narrow down important factors. Today, it's unethical to preform the Milgram experiment. Michael/vSauce did preform the actual trolley experiment for a YouTube video, which is interesting, but it was bad scientifically because the sample size was too small, the experiment changed for one person, and the ethics for the entire thing was questionable.
  - wycy 6y ago
    The Milgram experiment is largely seen as a fraud now[0]. [0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...
numpad0 6y ago
Risky or harmful doesn’t mean effective
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mola 6y ago
I think this is interpreted backwards. It was a policy decision to allow a controlled amount of public gatherings. As a measure to return to normality. Scientists are using the opportunity to investigate the outcome. Thus they can advise the policy makers. Doesn't sound very ethically controversial.
pacamara619 6y ago
We shy away of those kinds of experiments ever since Dr. Mengele had his way.
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Mengele was a monster that had no scientific ground for his 'experiments', they were just torture in disguise. Medical ethics has evolved a lot in the last couple of decades after numerous cases came to light that retrospectively showed that harm was being done to people, in many cases without their consent or any level of transparency about what the experiment was about.
jacquesm 6y ago
Experimenting on humans is considered highly unethical. Studies like this are rare for a very good reason, looking back through history we have realized that such experiments when reviewed at a later date almost always turned out to be not in the best interest of the subjects of the tests.
- danenania 6y ago
  I agree that experimenting on humans is unethical. Actually, let's put that a little more strongly... it's fucking evil. That said, people are going to congregate in groups, including large groups, no matter what any government says or does. It's not something governments can realistically prevent. A varying but significant percentage of the population of any country will simply do as they wish regardless of the risk to themselves or others. So if they're going to do it anyway, shouldn't we at least learn something from it?
- manquer 6y ago
  You are right , none of the human experiments or eugenics were done by regimes that did not have ulterior motives . however as thought experiment let us say if you can develop a safe vaccine by killing hundred people and save millions , should you do it ? Should I develop a self driving AI to choose life of child over dozen people Adults ? These are not easy questions to answer while the first may not happen , the second scenario is not far off
  - jacquesm 6y ago
    Ethics and utilitarian arguments tend to not go together very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
- darkerside 6y ago
  And if it's in the best interests of society at large, shouldn't we have some mechanism by which to learn?

Uberphallus 6y ago

I'd say human experimentation has become a big no-no. Pretty gnarly research has been done until the 70s, even 80s. Even for new drugs there are countless hoops to jump to get to the final human trials. Right now you can study infected individuals just fine, but you can't go around inoculating people with diseases, even if they're volunteers. One common pattern I've seen is that well known, old drugs, are either known to be ok for a pregnant woman, or not ok. But the bulk of drugs discovered since the 80s are "not advised unless necessary", "check with your doctor" and other variants of passing the hot potato.

Frost1x 6y ago
>and other variants of passing the hot potato. That's pretty much every aspect of society anymore. Few people will take responsibility if the option to pass it exists, in general.

spinach 6y ago

Would you yourself go to a concert at this time?

haunter 6y ago
In Germany? Yes. In the US? Absolutely not. I'm in Hungary and was at a jazz concert myself this weekend
- Eldt 6y ago
  What do you think your chances of catching and spreading the virus are?
vanilla-almond 6y ago
Would you yourself go to a concert at this time? This socially-distanced outdoor concert in Newcastle (in the UK) doesn't seem too bad. Everyone has their own 'pod'. However, it's not suitable for indoor concerts and the extra logistics might make it too impractical even for outdoor concerts. Pic of the setup: https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1100,c_fill,g_auto,h_619,ar_16:9/http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.cnn.com%2Fcnnnext%2Fdam%2Fassets%2F200813074413-restricted-01-social-distanced-music-festival-intl-scli-0811.jpg https://dynaimage.cdn.cnn.com/cnn/q_auto,w_1100,c_fill,g_aut... Here's a write-up of what it was like to attend: This is what it was like to attend the UK’s first ever socially distanced gig: https://thetab.com/uk/2020/08/14/this-is-what-it-was-like-to-attend-the-uks-first-ever-socially-distanced-concert-171256 https://thetab.com/uk/2020/08/14/this-is-what-it-was-like-to...
tbronchain 6y ago
Definitely. Wear a mask, wash your hands, try to keep some sort of distance with people, don't go if you feel sick and try taking care of your immune system as much as you can before/after. Expect people having some sort of respect and do the same. Outdoor events would be a much bigger yes compared to indoor (note: concerts doesn't mean stacked onto each other's). Of course, tests must be ubiquitous and this shouldn't happen while in an area having a peak of the epidemy. Restricting contacts with fragile people would also be wise. I've been to hundreds of concerts/events and rarely been sick after one. Risks to catch a disease are in my opinion not higher than public transports or a crowded beach and probably lower than bars in general. We need to stop this non-sense.
- gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
  There's something innate about shaming people who do different things. People are feeding off of panic and constant dread. If you don't affirm their apocalypse delusions you'll be shamed. You'll be told attending a concert or even wanting to is a sign you're a selfish misanthrope and idiot. They could just indefinitely stay locked in their home if they feel the risk is that grave...but no, they'll stop at nothing to extend their agoraphobia to everyone.
- patrickk 6y ago
  > don't go if you feel sick Sadly, selfish people will abuse this. They'll go even if they feel sick, likely justifying it as "but I already bought my ticket". Asymptomatic people will also increase the risk. > Of course, tests must be ubiquitous and this shouldn't happen while in an area having a peak of the epidemy. Anecdotally, a doctor I went to recently told me that the standard swab test is likely to be ruled invalid in the near future, he referenced a study that should be published soon. So, we will be flying blind if large (indoor) events re-open.
matz1 6y ago
I'm not a music fan but if I were I absolutely will go. The risk are minimal. The virus spread easily but not that dangerous. In fact I've been living my life as normal as I could possibly do all these times.
- dboreham 6y ago
  The issue isn't the risk to yourself, which is minimal. The problem is that spreading the virus widely (which seems easy to do at crowded events, precise transmission model not yet known) ultimately results in a bunch of other people somewhere in the future ending up in hospital or dead.
  - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
    How many people have you killed if you were ever infected with flu or some other airborne virus? This thinking is absurd.
    - rorykoehler 6y ago
      A champions league game was the source of a major spike in both Italy and Spain and ended up killing thousands.
      - gnusty_gnurc 6y ago
        By that logic, China killed a million ppl?
        rorykoehler 6y ago
        I expect more intellectual honesty and curiosity on this site tbh. Please don’t purposely reduce the quality of the experience here. Some context >The match is being called "Game Zero" because it was played just two days before the first positive case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Italy. The head of pulmonology at a Bergamo hospital, which is outside of Milan and the usual home of Atalanta, recently described the Champions League match as "a biological bomb." There were also about 2,500 Valencia fans in the stands for the match, and 35 percent of Valencia's team tested positive for the coronavirus a few weeks later. >Bergamo Mayor Giorgio Gori echoed that statement. https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/coronavirus-how-a-champions-league-match-contributed-to-italys-covid-19-outbreak/ https://www.cbssports.com/soccer/news/coronavirus-how-a-cham... More sources. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA-Champions-League-Achtelfinal-Hinspiel_Atalanta_Bergamo_–_FC_Valencia_2020 https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA-Champions-League-Achtelfi...
lagadu 6y ago
I've already been to concerts this month, so yea. Lots of Europe already restarted large gatherings.

addicted 6y ago

There is no way you could take “risks” like these a couple of months ago. We simply did not know enough about the virus at the time. Now we have improved treatment methods significantly, we know ways to drastically reduce the spread of the virus using simple mechanical strategies, and we are confident about the kind of people that are at the least risk. In Germany the virus is also subdued enough that even if something goes wrong, it won’t become a drastic situation immediately. The US isn’t there yet, but thanks to mask wearing and social distancing might be there in a few weeks. So once the conditions were feasible to do such studies, peop,e are doing such studies.

ricardobeat 6y ago
> we have improved treatment methods significantly Have they? I haven't seen anything in the news besides a few practices evolving (prone positioning, avoiding ventilation too early). > we know ways to drastically reduce the spread of the virus using simple mechanical strategies Masks, hygiene, disinfection, distancing, were all known and encouraged since March. We are almost entering September, and my impression is that there hasn't been any new discoveries, other than trial drugs or confirming earlier findings, since late May/June. If anything, you couldn't take those risks earlier because of public opinion, not any practical reasons.
- taejo 6y ago
  Masks were discouraged by many governments in March, even if they were encouraged by others.
  - ricardobeat 6y ago
    That's besides the point; I'm arguing that "we simply did not know enough about the virus at the time" as said by the parent commenter is not really true, and probably irrelevant for why experiments like these did not happen before. For what's worth using facemasks is still being discouraged by the Dutch government as we speak...
- darkerside 6y ago

wittyreference 6y ago

We developed ethics around clinical research. One of those principles is that if you’re going to actively expose people to something - to create a possible harm where there previously wasn’t one - you have to be honestly uncertain of the potential harm (eg, it’s ethical to give you a placebo vs experimental drug because I honestly don’t know if the drug will work). It’s unethical to -certainly- cause harm. In part that’s because, social dynamics and power structures being what they are, those “consenting” will skew towards the uneducated and powerless. In part, consent isn’t even relevant - in this example, if they ended up stoking the flames of contagion, they wouldn’t just affect the concert goers but, by definition, all those exposed to the concert goers. Amusingly, the above refers more to interventional studies - those with more than one arm. This doesn’t really have a control arm, or randomized assignment of people to exposure. It’s effectively an observational study - the sort of thing you don’t need to intentionally construct, but for the fact that people seem to not be going to concerts. So... did they have to construct concerts artificially because not enough were occurring naturally? Did they have to create a harm that didn’t exist to begin with? Will it even be insightful? They filtered for the young, which specifically ensures there’s less of a chain of transmission available. Considering Germany inspired so much of modern medical ethics work, it’s ironic to see them conduct such a study. I honestly wouldn’t have expected it. I’m sure the relevant experts and authorities beat these questions to death, but even so, I’d be awfully curious to see those deliberations and what justifications were ultimately considered adequate.

nicoburns 6y ago
We're not very consistent with this though. We consider it perfectly acceptable to put people in harms way as part of the armed forces. Even though the exact same demographic effects are in play.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- prepend 6y ago
  The armed forces aren’t a randomized trial. Many people go into harms way because of a necessary duty (firefighters, etc). The restrictions on medical trials is because of the power imbalance. If I take a job as a firefighter or soldier that’s different from me living my life and being enrolled in some study putting me at risk for harm.

sp332 6y ago

What has happened to us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_Syphilis_Study#Racism "Our estimates imply life expectancy at age 45 for black men fell by up to 1.4 years in response to the disclosure" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Lead_Paint_Study#Aftermath https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_Lead_Paint_Study#Aft... "After the study ended, many poor, African-American children ended up with neurological disabilities as a result, often incurring permanent nervous damage." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateville_Penitentiary_Malaria_Study#Legacy_of_the_study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateville_Penitentiary_Malari... "The international Nuremberg Code of human experimentation ethics, which resulted from the trials, contained clauses directly violated by the Stateville experiments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_trials_in_Puerto_Rico#Ethics_and_Controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraceptive_trials_in_Puerto... etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentation_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unethical_human_experimentatio...

usrusr 6y ago
Well, strictly speaking this wasn't an unethical experiment in so far as that they tested for covid before, to make it safe, not after, to assess the damage. But it gives off a certain "scientific whaling" vibe, I can't help questioning the intentions.
djsumdog 6y ago
Stanley Milgram preformed an experiment that was incredibly valuable and has been replicated in many countries around the world. Variations of the experiment with different results helped narrow down important factors. Today, it's unethical to preform the Milgram experiment. Michael/vSauce did preform the actual trolley experiment for a YouTube video, which is interesting, but it was bad scientifically because the sample size was too small, the experiment changed for one person, and the ethics for the entire thing was questionable.
- wycy 6y ago
  The Milgram experiment is largely seen as a fraud now[0]. [0] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-experiment-fraud-psychology-replication https://www.vox.com/2018/6/13/17449118/stanford-prison-exper...

numpad0 6y ago

Risky or harmful doesn’t mean effective

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mola 6y ago

I think this is interpreted backwards. It was a policy decision to allow a controlled amount of public gatherings. As a measure to return to normality. Scientists are using the opportunity to investigate the outcome. Thus they can advise the policy makers. Doesn't sound very ethically controversial.

pacamara619 6y ago

We shy away of those kinds of experiments ever since Dr. Mengele had his way.

jacquesm 6y ago
Mengele was a monster that had no scientific ground for his 'experiments', they were just torture in disguise. Medical ethics has evolved a lot in the last couple of decades after numerous cases came to light that retrospectively showed that harm was being done to people, in many cases without their consent or any level of transparency about what the experiment was about.

jacquesm 6y ago

Experimenting on humans is considered highly unethical. Studies like this are rare for a very good reason, looking back through history we have realized that such experiments when reviewed at a later date almost always turned out to be not in the best interest of the subjects of the tests.

danenania 6y ago
I agree that experimenting on humans is unethical. Actually, let's put that a little more strongly... it's fucking evil. That said, people are going to congregate in groups, including large groups, no matter what any government says or does. It's not something governments can realistically prevent. A varying but significant percentage of the population of any country will simply do as they wish regardless of the risk to themselves or others. So if they're going to do it anyway, shouldn't we at least learn something from it?
manquer 6y ago
You are right , none of the human experiments or eugenics were done by regimes that did not have ulterior motives . however as thought experiment let us say if you can develop a safe vaccine by killing hundred people and save millions , should you do it ? Should I develop a self driving AI to choose life of child over dozen people Adults ? These are not easy questions to answer while the first may not happen , the second scenario is not far off
- jacquesm 6y ago
  Ethics and utilitarian arguments tend to not go together very well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism
darkerside 6y ago
And if it's in the best interests of society at large, shouldn't we have some mechanism by which to learn?