4 ms·
No. I am pointing out the irony of the situation that if we were cruel enough to test the effects of these chemicals on a select few humans that it would have p
by BizarroLand 3y ago
No. I am pointing out the irony of the situation that if we were cruel enough to test the effects of these chemicals on a select few humans that it would have prevented humans worldwide from suffering under the cruelty of an untold multitude of side effects, but our own sense of ethics and justice prevented us from doing the thing that created the least total amount of suffering and cruelty.
That being said, I would still not advocate for human testing of chemicals and products, not even for death row inmates because there are too many things people would want to test and there is no bottom once we start going down that slide.
However, I would advocate for digital human simulacra that we could test the effects of chemicals on rather than any living creature. I hope that in the near future we could make a virtual human that we can carry out these tests on at many times normal speed so we can solve these things once and for all.
- hx8 3y agoYes, there is a dilemma that human test subjects could potentially save more lives than it cost. This is largely a utilitarian argument at its core. The current social more -- largely established post WW2 -- is that we should greatly regulate human test subjects and do a lot to mitigate the risks associated with it.