3 ms·
Probably the idea is to trust that people are inherently good and not malicious jerks willing to endanger everything around for personal gain. I think maybe it'
by throwaway290 3y ago
Probably the idea is to trust that people are inherently good and not malicious jerks willing to endanger everything around for personal gain. I think maybe it's the way to go indeed but then when it does go wrong the punishment should be proportionate to that trust.
- Ekaros 3y agoFunny thing is that we have been proven wrong with that for centuries now... Maybe the powers just don't want to learn.
- throwaway290 3y agoSo you think it's better to live under a regime where anything not explicitly sanctioned is forbidden?
- indigochill 3y agoEven under that assumption, the interaction of chemistry and biology is tricky (even drugs that have a well-established track record of being safe still have negative side effects for some people). Even moreso when you just let the chemical loose into the world rather than administering it in a controlled scenario like prescription pharmaceuticals.
- scns 3y agoMedication is tested on men only. So consequences for (pregnant) women will surface when prescribed to them.
- chiefalchemist 3y agoGood people make perfectly good mistakes. We have safety requirements for medical chemical (i.e., drugs). Why can't we do the same for industrials chemicals when we all know those chemicals end up in the environment, in our bodies, etc.? It's silly (read: insulting) to hear, "...incidents of Cancer X, Cancer Y and behavior Z are increasing and we have no idea why that might be..." Good people want to know. Not so good people turn a blind eye and feign ignorance. History is littered with good people, with good intentions, creating things with not-so-good consequences.
- throwaway290 3y agoThe topic is people with clearly bad intentions intentionally covering up or obstructing research...