|
|
|
|
|
|
by duncan_bayne
3866 days ago
|
|
|
Yes - both those positions are flawed. One leads to human progress, though, and the other to stagnation. I know which I'd choose. It's also worth considering that people clamoring for "proof of safety" are usually the first to complain when you ask them for evidence to back up their pet projects (for example minimum wage laws). It's not even like they're being consistent about it. |
|
|
Of course the other side would say that this hoped for "human progress" can, and many times, has instead been human suffering.
But, it's a false choice you're offering which says that these two extremes are our only options. No one is arguing against "progress". The problem is our haste to declare something safe due to absence of proof, then subject people to it on a mass scale. We literally experiment on the general population.
And, how many times must we learn this lesson? The hubris on display here [1] reminds me of those who today trumpet the safety of, say, GMOs; dumping different pesticides on entire populations (still today), etc.
In hindsight, the scale of hubris on display in [1] is completely asinine. But, the "absence of proof" mindset that led to this folly is alive and well today.
[1] http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2011/06/27/ddt-is-good-...