Our founder, Sir Bloody William Salutations, traveler of The Internets! Welcome to William's Bloody Hell, so named after our founder, Sir Bloody William. He is seen in the likeness above in a rare, 19th century woodcut. This image was rumoured to have been commissioned after a bout of unpleasantness in the White Chapel district of London. Do enjoy your stay and peruse our many, varied offerings, much of which cannot be found elsewhere!

Pointer   February 2011 SOTM

Pointer   Found a CD? Click here!

Pointer, small  Pointer, small   Home :: Contact :: Art :: Reviews :: Rants :: Misc. :: Fine Print :: Links
Rants >> Rant 261

::Today's soundtrack: Flogging Molly "Devil's Dance Floor" ::


I'm going to play devil's advocate here. I'm saying this right up front, so don't for a minute think that I actually believe we ought to implement any of the things I talk about here. I am merely creating an argument for them. Okay?

We would have more advancements in human biological science, medicines, disease prevention and cures if we lived within an all powerful, fascist totalitarian state. Deep down, you know it's true. If people did not have basic rights and freedoms, then the government could just pick up folks whenever they felt like with or without just cause, lock them up somewhere and let scientists experiment on them. Look at the crimes against humanity Nazi scientists and their work. Oh I know, say "Nazi" and no one will give your argument the time of day. But in all honesty, the knowledge we have today about how the human body reacts to extreme conditions is due to those Nazi scientists. No one in their right mind would volunteer for a study on extreme cold on their body which could kill them or leave them minus a few extremities. Up until Nazi experimentation, all we knew was as a result of unmonitored accidents. In laboratory with many highly intelligent doctors and scientists, they were able to document what happens to the human body as it freezes to death (both how long it would take and if it would be possible to revive them). Though many are horrified at the means in which this information was gathered, it has proven nonetheless invaluable.

Now, imagine if we lived in such a society today. If groups of people or people in general had little rights when it came to their government and the pursuit of science, just think what else we might know or more effective forms of treatments we might discover. You know, presently, there are no medications which are proven 100% safe in pregnant women. This is because no one is "allowed" to enter pregnant women into clinical trials. What if the government allowed the testing of drugs on pregnant women whether those women liked it or not? We would definitely get a more clear picture as to what was safe, or not, or even beneficial. In the short term, it sounds awful, but when thinking long term for the human race, would maybe the benefits outweigh the risks?

We might even have more effective treatments for rare diseases... if the government scientists were given carte blanche  to go and forcibly infect people with them for the purposes of developing a cure. Yes, it sounds terribly cruel to infect a thousand or so people with Ebola for the purposes of study, but if we can cure it as a result? Wouldn't that save lives?

What it comes down to is something akin to a couple hundred years ago and the study of human anatomy. Scientists were forbidden from dissecting human corpses at that time and based what they were able to learn about from higher primates on how they treated humans. Wouldn't you agree that allowing scientists and medical professionals to dissect and study human cadavers has been beneficial to the community at large? That the knowledge gained from it has led to better medical treatment? Wouldn't lowering restrictions on scientific study to include live human test subjects in various dangerous and harmful diseases, toxins, and conditions help everyone?

The point of this little foray into devil's advocacy is not whether or not it is okay to run tests on people without their consent and throw away basic human rights (of course it isn't). The point was whether or not it would be useful scientifically to do so. Deep down, I think you know the answer. And if I made you think you are a bad person even a little bit for considering it, then bonus points for me.

William the Bloody (thoughts against humanity)

comments powered by Disqus