4 ms·

I think there is a lot to be said for humanity pushing ahead with innovation and then figuring out how to deal with the side effects afterward. Look at fire. T

I think there is a lot to be said for humanity pushing ahead with innovation and then figuring out how to deal with the side effects afterward. Look at fire. This was probably one of humanity's first innovations. It is extremely destructive and I think we are just now getting handle on fire safety, but I think the benefits have outweighed the harms. Same with agriculture. Again, lot of bad side effects, but overall better for humanity as it has freed up a significant number of people to be able to do other stuff besides just think about where their next meal is coming from. Anesthesia, electricity, antibiotics, birth control, have all followed this pattern.

suby 4y ago
I'd rather not have my life shortened, or have to live with weird sicknesses, or have wildlife / ecosystems harmed due to us blacklisting when we could be whitelisting substances. I'm sure some of these chemicals let us do very cool things, but when the innovation in question is something like water-resistant clothing, can we please just fucking prove the chemicals are safe first. There's no way to opt out of any of this, and the potential for harm extends well beyond what we've seen so far.
- jtbayly 4y ago
  How do you prove a chemical safe?
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    You test it for various common and uncommon cases. Like how does it influence fruit fly fertility if the concentration is above x%. But nothing is 100% sure in the real world, if that was your point, but for practical matters we can get close enough, if we want to. But I know that quite some tests are not being done, because the results would not be welcome.
  - mensetmanusman 3y ago
    There is no ethical way to do control tests on humans. Proof is not in the realm of biology, risk management is.
    - wkat4242 3y ago
      Humans don't seem to mind considering how many people buy these jackets either way. I'm sure enough volunteers could be found.
SantalBlush 4y ago
The burden of "figuring out how to deal with the side effects" is placed on a subset of the population who didn't consent to it and often lacks the wherewithal to fight it, so this is an awful take.
- CapstanRoller 3y ago
  The amount of technophile sociopaths on this website is incredibly alarming. I can see why tech people are so hated by the general public.
  - SantalBlush 3y ago
    And it's made worse by the fact that you're not supposed to call it out, because that wouldn't be "assuming good faith" (which is a noble goal, but is too often used to let low-key malicious takes slide). You're expected to pretend they're respectable perspectives and not absolutely insane opinions that deserve to be ridiculed.
haswell 4y ago
I don’t think this logic can be applied uniformly across areas of progress, nor should it be assumed to remain true over time (if it ever was). No doubt some developments were well worth their initial risk, but other developments have been demonstrably the opposite. As the environment gets more critically out of whack, the weight of that risk increases as does the risk itself. And as time goes on, the increasing complexity of the developments we call “progress” means we’re less and less likely to understand their impact. Hopefully this will be counteracted by better and better models of the world.
layman51 4y ago
It’s kind of a slippery slope argument, but benefits in agriculture or other very helpful technology is a lot different compared to applications like making your floss easier to glide between teeth or your coat repel water.
patmorgan23 4y ago
We don't follow that pattern with 3 of your 4 examples. The FDA regulates and approves anesthetics, antibiotics, and birth control drugs. We required new drug makers to prove both safety and efficacy of their medication before they are approved for use on the general population. I think I think we should do the same thing for industrial chemicals/additives or anything that gets released into the environment from an industrial/commercial process. You don't get to poison the town then say "oops how could we have known better".
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
  The development of anesthesia predates the FDA. Look at how Morton, Liston, and others were developing and using anesthesia for surgery without regulatory oversight. Regulation came later. Antibiotics were developed and saw use without FDA oversight. I don't think Penicillin ever underwent the clinical trials that drugs do now. Only after issues surfaced, were they regulated more strictly.

suby 4y ago

I'd rather not have my life shortened, or have to live with weird sicknesses, or have wildlife / ecosystems harmed due to us blacklisting when we could be whitelisting substances. I'm sure some of these chemicals let us do very cool things, but when the innovation in question is something like water-resistant clothing, can we please just fucking prove the chemicals are safe first. There's no way to opt out of any of this, and the potential for harm extends well beyond what we've seen so far.

jtbayly 4y ago
How do you prove a chemical safe?
- hutzlibu 3y ago
  You test it for various common and uncommon cases. Like how does it influence fruit fly fertility if the concentration is above x%. But nothing is 100% sure in the real world, if that was your point, but for practical matters we can get close enough, if we want to. But I know that quite some tests are not being done, because the results would not be welcome.
- mensetmanusman 3y ago
  There is no ethical way to do control tests on humans. Proof is not in the realm of biology, risk management is.
  - wkat4242 3y ago
    Humans don't seem to mind considering how many people buy these jackets either way. I'm sure enough volunteers could be found.

SantalBlush 4y ago

The burden of "figuring out how to deal with the side effects" is placed on a subset of the population who didn't consent to it and often lacks the wherewithal to fight it, so this is an awful take.

CapstanRoller 3y ago
The amount of technophile sociopaths on this website is incredibly alarming. I can see why tech people are so hated by the general public.
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  And it's made worse by the fact that you're not supposed to call it out, because that wouldn't be "assuming good faith" (which is a noble goal, but is too often used to let low-key malicious takes slide). You're expected to pretend they're respectable perspectives and not absolutely insane opinions that deserve to be ridiculed.

haswell 4y ago

I don’t think this logic can be applied uniformly across areas of progress, nor should it be assumed to remain true over time (if it ever was). No doubt some developments were well worth their initial risk, but other developments have been demonstrably the opposite. As the environment gets more critically out of whack, the weight of that risk increases as does the risk itself. And as time goes on, the increasing complexity of the developments we call “progress” means we’re less and less likely to understand their impact. Hopefully this will be counteracted by better and better models of the world.

layman51 4y ago

It’s kind of a slippery slope argument, but benefits in agriculture or other very helpful technology is a lot different compared to applications like making your floss easier to glide between teeth or your coat repel water.

patmorgan23 4y ago

We don't follow that pattern with 3 of your 4 examples. The FDA regulates and approves anesthetics, antibiotics, and birth control drugs. We required new drug makers to prove both safety and efficacy of their medication before they are approved for use on the general population. I think I think we should do the same thing for industrial chemicals/additives or anything that gets released into the environment from an industrial/commercial process. You don't get to poison the town then say "oops how could we have known better".

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
The development of anesthesia predates the FDA. Look at how Morton, Liston, and others were developing and using anesthesia for surgery without regulatory oversight. Regulation came later. Antibiotics were developed and saw use without FDA oversight. I don't think Penicillin ever underwent the clinical trials that drugs do now. Only after issues surfaced, were they regulated more strictly.