If you want a good example in-theory, take pharmacy companies. Let's say they really get their act together and remove such minor side effects in their products like the bothersome and inconvenient death, and make medication that completely fixes up their clients into top shape again.

Dying isn't a side-effect of the drug; dying is the side-effect of the drug being used in combination of different dispositions and/or combination with other drugs. Every side-effect listed on a product is the result of dozens of clinical trials involving hundreds upon hundreds of subjects. If three out of every hundred persons say they get a headache after taking Zyprexa, "headache" is listed as a potential side-effect.

If you stay awake for forty hours and then fall asleep after reading a book, you didn't fall asleep because you read a book. Reading a book put you in a relaxed state that, combined with pre-existing sleep deprivation, made you fall asleep.

That's not to say there aren't drugs with overwhelmingly negative side-effects that occur in large populations, like that one drug that made boys grow breasts. But that's why you don't just take a pill just because your doctor said so, because he has a quota to fill. Learn for yourself on important issues.

"Three out of every hundred" is still too many, in my book. It's like saying "one out of thirty-three."

Hell--one in a thousand is still too frequent to be acceptable. For any side-effect.

What I'm saying is that the side-effect could either be imaginary (for some; obviously, death isn't imaginary), misattributed, or caused by the drug in combination with something else, not necessarily the fault of the drug. Another problem is taking too high or too small of a dose; both can lead to unintended side-effects that occur in no fault to the prescription.

One in a thousand might even be an overstatement. Like I said, hundreds upon hundreds of subjects over the course of many, many years. The pharmaceutical company is required by law to list any and every side effect given during the course of the trials. That number might not even be as large as three in a thousand (which, like you said, is in itself a large number), it could be as low as a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a decimal. It doesn't matter; if it happened, it's listed. That's why the list is so long, and also why they proceed certain items with "serious risk". Serious risk means that there is a greater likeliness that you may have the side-effect than being struck by lightning.

Even despite all this, that doesn't mean drugs these drugs are maleficial. Vaccines, for example, prevent an enumerable amount of illnesses every year. Say the McCarthy camp is right, and there is the potential that vaccines cause autism. So fucking what? It'd be a very small chance of it happening, and it'd be better to have autism than polio. The benefit outweighs the negative aspects.

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 21, 2015, 12:56:55 PM

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 12:49:13 PM

If you want a good example in-theory, take pharmacy companies. Let's say they really get their act together and remove such minor side effects in their products like the bothersome and inconvenient death, and make medication that completely fixes up their clients into top shape again.

Dying isn't a side-effect of the drug; dying is the side-effect of the drug being used in combination of different dispositions and/or combination with other drugs. Every side-effect listed on a product is the result of dozens of clinical trials involving hundreds upon hundreds of subjects. If three out of every hundred persons say they get a headache after taking Zyprexa, "headache" is listed as a potential side-effect.

If you stay awake for forty hours and then fall asleep after reading a book, you didn't fall asleep because you read a book. Reading a book put you in a relaxed state that, combined with pre-existing sleep deprivation, made you fall asleep.

I'm aware of the work that goes into making prescriptions. Of course messing around with chemical compounds and shooting them out among a general population that fluctuates in terms of genetic diversity and reactivity is going to have side effects.

But, what I'm stating is, if somebody where to make something that was truly beneficial with almost no downsides? It'd be shut down, totally. For example.

Nanomachines seem to have everybody's undies in a bundle because of thier possibilities. Let's say for a moment, that somebody or a team of scientists creates long-term, efficient machines that are capable of maintaining themselves indefinitely, and actively act as augments to our own anti-bodies, keeping a data-base of diseseas they encounter, making them incredibly efficient.

It'd never sell on an open market. That, or it would sell for immensly high prices. I mean, naturally, something like that would sell like hotcakes.

But if you're a business, you don't sell shit that sells like hotcakes mainly because it's good. You sell shit like hotcakes because it breaks. Or a better version comes out the following year, and so on and so forth. Maximum profit for minimal cost.

Right now, scientific advancements aren't moving at the top of their game, unhindered. They're moving based on paychecks. And they're regulated by markets.

Nah, businesses would love nanomachines. Due to the information they would receive from them (average weight, height, pulse, sodium/sugar intake, heart rate in response to stimuli, etc) it'd be the most accurate way imaginable of knowing what the average person wants. The medical industry would shift away from vaccines and medications to other (at that point) profitable sectors, like genetic testing.

And until they are all eradicated, I'll never be happy.

Then prepare for an unhappy existence. All things have unintended consequences.

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 01:30:08 PM

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 21, 2015, 12:56:55 PM

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 12:49:13 PM

If you want a good example in-theory, take pharmacy companies. Let's say they really get their act together and remove such minor side effects in their products like the bothersome and inconvenient death, and make medication that completely fixes up their clients into top shape again.

Dying isn't a side-effect of the drug; dying is the side-effect of the drug being used in combination of different dispositions and/or combination with other drugs. Every side-effect listed on a product is the result of dozens of clinical trials involving hundreds upon hundreds of subjects. If three out of every hundred persons say they get a headache after taking Zyprexa, "headache" is listed as a potential side-effect.

If you stay awake for forty hours and then fall asleep after reading a book, you didn't fall asleep because you read a book. Reading a book put you in a relaxed state that, combined with pre-existing sleep deprivation, made you fall asleep.

I'm aware of the work that goes into making prescriptions. Of course messing around with chemical compounds and shooting them out among a general population that fluctuates in terms of genetic diversity and reactivity is going to have side effects.

But, what I'm stating is, if somebody where to make something that was truly beneficial with almost no downsides? It'd be shut down, totally. For example.

Nanomachines seem to have everybody's undies in a bundle because of thier possibilities. Let's say for a moment, that somebody or a team of scientists creates long-term, efficient machines that are capable of maintaining themselves indefinitely, and actively act as augments to our own anti-bodies, keeping a data-base of diseseas they encounter, making them incredibly efficient.

It'd never sell on an open market. That, or it would sell for immensly high prices. I mean, naturally, something like that would sell like hotcakes.

But if you're a business, you don't sell shit that sells like hotcakes mainly because it's good. You sell shit like hotcakes because it breaks. Or a better version comes out the following year, and so on and so forth. Maximum profit for minimal cost.

Right now, scientific advancements aren't moving at the top of their game, unhindered. They're moving based on paychecks. And they're regulated by markets.

Nah, businesses would love nanomachines. Due to the information they would receive from them (average weight, height, pulse, sodium/sugar intake, heart rate in response to stimuli, etc) it'd be the most accurate way imaginable of knowing what the average person wants. The medical industry would shift away from vaccines and medications to other (at that point) profitable sectors, like genetic testing.

Again. See what I mean? Medical industry following along in the wake of profits. I used a poor example there. But the general rule when you're a business is, profit. It always comes first. And it's that mindset that leads current progress along.

Which is what I say is a hinderance to advancement, more than splinter groups. You shouldn't be in the scientific game to make money and follow along after it. You shouldn't regulate advances based on profits.

If you want a real world example of this, take my province. I'd like my home to be solar powered and wind powered. I've all the math and neccessary calculations done for everything. Now, there's a province a few doors over to me, Ontario.

They pay people who hook themselves up to the grid and feed excess power into it from their solar farms or when they're not actively using any power. My province?

If I were to hook myself up to the grid and feed power into it I'd be arrested. And I've looked up the reasons why.

I'll give you one guess what it all comes down to.

Quote from: Prime Quinx on August 21, 2015, 01:45:57 PM

All things have unintended consequences.

And, this is just patently false, of course. And even if it were the case, that doesn't mean we shouldn't do to strive for perfection. To strive to mitigate the consequences.

You know, instead of saying, "Oh well--these anti-suicide pills might end up making you more suicidal. Oh well--All things have unintended consequences. No use fixing it."

To be the tin-foil-hattist of the bunch in this discussion.

I, personally, wouldn't put it past companies to purposely blow off side effects for the sake of profits. There's counter meds for side effects, as well. You take medication, sometimes rather than take you off one that gives you side effects, they also hit you with a counter prescription to counterarct the side effects.

Which of course, comes right out of your pocket. It's capitalizing on the fact that a percentage of the population aren't cured, but also made actively sick.

And I wouldn't be surprised if some forms of medication have the slack loosened on them and put up on the markets, as is, with those side effects in-mind to make an extra buck.

Verb's not wrong either. A lot of people go "Eh the good stuff outweighs the bad stuff so it's good to go."

I'm just bolstering his point here. There's a hell of a lot of various sides to consider here when we talk about stuff like this.

Exactly. There is no rational reason anyone should be "happy", or even content, with the state of psychiatry today.

You know how a fair number of parents usher their kids to be doctors not because they want to help people, but because "you get well paid as a doctor?"

Yeah, see, I don't really trust somebody who's doing their job because they're getting paid well. I'd trust them if they were doing their job because they loved doing their job.

Couldn't possibly agree more.

Sorry to derail Prime's thread here. But Verb. Just imagine it. Because it puts me into a fit. I'm a strong young lad with an able body. But unlike most people my age, I haven't fucked off from the area off to the city or wherever. And I take small time short jobs here and there as I need them.

But get this.

I get suggestions from people.

"Oh you should go work up north on the rigs. There's a lot of money in it."

I can't even. I have to fight not to laugh. I'm going to sign up for arguably one of the shittiest, backbreaking jobs of all fucking time, because "the pay is good!?"

Risk fucking up my entire body, because I see 30-40 year olds who have worked on the rigs and fucked their bodies up so much that they can no longer work, because "the pay is good."

How fucking insane is that. It's ludicrous. It's absolute insanity.

And the best part is, we founded a system on it.

It's unfortunate that most of the naysayers are just subscribers of shitty Gaia philosophy.

Because they're ignoring the fucking minefield of real issues there are with drugs. Like minimizing their side effects.

But no, pretending as though drugs are the way to go is just as shitty and stupid as being against them because "muh nature" .
If not shittier and stupider.

Perhaps they should make a vaccine for stupid. Wouldn't that be something?

Side effects not including death, of course.

I would be okay if every stupid person died, to be honest.

so, everyone

the main reason i don't agree with her, though, is because i think anti-natalism is so much better

and it's not even that I disagree with her--it's just that, I don't see any compelling reason to be like, "wow, drugs are so awesome! drugs are the future!"

No. Fuck that.

drugs are awful--period
and they shouldn't be the future until they're 100% safe to fucking use

the main reason i don't agree with her, though, is because i think anti-natalism is so much better

But it's a fundamentally flawed concept in terms of time and our own evolutionary traits. As I told Prime. Nowhere in our history have we ever had 100% agreement in anything, be it philosophy, ideals, morals, or perception. Even intelligence.

It's a concept that can never be realized or reached. And, taking into account the expire time on our star, and the supposed expire time of our universe, it'll all end anyway. On the scale of the universe, we could exist for another few thousand years. Maybe a million. And it would be an eye-blink.

It'd be almost nothing. Your own lifespan is basically less than dust. I worded it wrong though. The concept itself? Decent on paper.

But like communisim, if applied to real world scenarios?

It's a failure. And if you're going to say that one day there's a possibility that we can reach 100% agreement on something?

Then we're not flawed human beings anymore.

Annnnnd I just pitched the ball into the court of anti-natilism conversation.

It's a concept that can never be realized or reached.

says you

we freed the slaves and we legalized gay marriage

pretty sure we can convince people to stop giving birth
it's... not really asking for a whole lot

It's a failure. And if you're going to say that one day there's a possibility that we can reach 100% agreement on something?

we wouldn't need 100%

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 03:19:07 PM

It's a concept that can never be realized or reached.

says you

we freed the slaves and we legalized gay marriage

pretty sure we can convince people to stop giving birth
it's... not really asking for a whole lot

Quote

It's a failure. And if you're going to say that one day there's a possibility that we can reach 100% agreement on something?

we wouldn't need 100%

Convince people to stop giving birth? Not asking for a whole lot? Okay. Flip the table.

Is a Christain asking you to put your faith in God asking for a whole lot? I'd wager to you it would be.

And 100%? Yeah, we would. Because if you don't have 100% concensus there's holdouts. There's opposition. There's active resistance. For example.

This very fucking discussion about people being opposed to certain forms of technology as "un-natural."

Quote from:  on August 21, 2015, 03:25:29 PM

I also wouldn't bet the future is a solid avenue of approach either since there's other forms of science out there. I wouldn't say drugs are the future solely. They may play a role in things but not the entirety of them.

that was just meant to be a mock of the stereotypical idealist's zeal over dumb bullshit--not meant to be taken literally

I TOOK IT LITERALLY VERB.

I LITERALLY TOOK IT LITERALLY.