3 ms·
It’s not just save as many lives as possible at all costs, saving 20 kids but 2 will develop debilitating peanut allergies isn’t worth it. Progress must be done
by repeekad 1y ago
It’s not just save as many lives as possible at all costs, saving 20 kids but 2 will develop debilitating peanut allergies isn’t worth it. Progress must be done slowly ensuring no harm is done along the way.
Science failed here.
- jbstack 1y agoWhat on earth are you saying? It's better to kill 20 children than to risk that 2 of them develop peanut allergies? I don't see how this can even begin to be an arguable position to take. And that's ignoring the fact that it isn't even a correct assertion in this case.
- repeekad 1y agoThey’re not mutually exclusive options, we can save the 20 kids safely while having a mindset that values doing no harm. Telling anxious parents to have their kids avoid peanuts caused harm that wouldn’t have happened otherwise. I guess it’s valuable to better understand allergies, but learning at others’ expense isn’t worth it.
- pbhjpbhj 1y agoSo you avoid things like electricity and the internet, because they've caused children's deaths too?
- repeekad 1y agoI’d prefer to live in a world where the same technology developed in such a way that they didn’t have to die, yes.
- lurk2 1y ago> It’s not just save as many lives as possible at all costs, saving 20 kids but 2 will develop debilitating peanut allergies isn’t worth it. Your math isn’t checking out here.
- repeekad 1y agoI clearly misspoke and people are misunderstanding my point, which is only that “hurting people is worth it” is a horrible argument and shouldn’t be a valuable thing, we can and should save the 20 kids without causing harm to the 2 doing nothing is better than something if that something might hurt people without understanding how and why
- monkey_monkey 1y agoPeople are misunderstanding your point because you are doing a terrible job of explaining it.
- repeekad 1y agoWhat specifically do you disagree with? I’ve explained it three different times now and can’t delete my original comment so please let me know This research shows physicians harmed kids recommending they avoid allergens like peanuts, is that something we should ignore because all the benefits of science are “worth it”? Science is amazing not because it’s always right, but because it (should) strive to always do better next time
- monkey_monkey 1y agoAll you're fucking doing is saying "Don't save a million people of 1 person is going to be harmed" OR the utterly trite point of "wouldn't it be great if everything was magical and no one was harmed by anything ever".
- repeekad 1y agoWhat you’re describing is called utilitarian ethics, the exact tradeoff is called the trolly problem. Ethics is much more complicated than a single comment thread “it’s worth it” is a horrible argument when people’s health is on the line.
- array_key_first 1y agoYeah, we should just round up all those peasants with peanut allergies and shoot them!