&gt;<i>both those positions are flawed. One leads to human progress, though, and the other to stagnation</i><p>Of course the other side would say that this hoped for &quot;human progress&quot; can, and many times, has instead been human suffering.<p>But, it&#x27;s a false choice you&#x27;re offering which says that these two extremes are our only options. No one is arguing against &quot;progress&quot;. 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.<p>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.<p>In hindsight, the scale of hubris on display in [1] is completely asinine. But, the &quot;absence of proof&quot; mindset that led to this folly is alive and well today.<p>[1] <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thesocietypages.org&#x2F;socimages&#x2F;2011&#x2F;06&#x2F;27&#x2F;ddt-is-good-for-me-e-e&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;thesocietypages.org&#x2F;socimages&#x2F;2011&#x2F;06&#x2F;27&#x2F;ddt-is-good-...</a>