They tested on animals, identifying the retraction issue… Then did nothing and installed it into a human anyway.
In your example it’d be shampoo that chemically burns pig scalps that is pushed to market for humans anyway.
Stop being an apologist and think about what it means to have billionaires treating desperate people as guinea pigs for invasive technology testing.
Look, at this point it’s just an agree to disagree thing. You think it’s ok for companies to do irreversible operations as long as subjects are desperate enough to consent. Others think that’s abusive. There’s obviously no changing your mind. That’s ok, just move on.
And no. If you’ve spent any amount of time here then you know that a ton of people here are also against bezos and pretty much every other billionaires out there.
And for what it’s worth, I do see your point. And I’d probably be inclined to agree. But at the same time, I do see the fact that it’s morally questionable
