[asituop]

I'm not sure to understand are you basically saying " it's okay to do human testing because we can save million of others " ?

The whole point of "civilized" countries is to guarantee some basic individual rights by not fall into this pure utilitarian vision. Otherwise you can justify all the most dystopian-dictatorish-nazish horrors you want.

If you or your children were dying because some scientists did non-consenting & non-needed test on them to make sure "we build the technology to save million others" you wouldn't find this fair.

[buboard]

> it's okay to do human testing because we can save million of others " ?

We still do wars

[alexandercrohde]

I never said anything is or isn't "okay." I'm pointing out that collectively we, together, have to decide what we think is okay. And I'm pointing out it's very comfortable and easy for us to say "Nobody can ever opt in to a risky scientific experiment."

And I'm saying if we choose this, we may be letting lots and lots of people die because of it.

Is that a good enough reason to be more experimental? That's for us, together, to decide.

[parrot_11]

So what happens when:

1. Your country A doesn't allow genetic enhancement because of some "equality" concerns.

2. Another country B decides to go ahead with it anyways, gets a number of competitive advantages, eventually gains an upper hand economically and any other spheres.