>what if unintended consequences somehow resulted in twice as many children dying per day but we had failed to predict this due to not investigating things fully enough in advance?
And yet no plausible scenario is seriously identified to deliver such unintended consequences, so a net decrease of dead children is to be expected. That's past "good enough" in most people's book.
It helps that the effects would be indirect. Direct ones, like in the case of novel medicines, are scarier and harder to cope with. It's not easy to "try another body". But the indirect effect of, say, lower availability of certain food commodities due to bird and fish die-offs due to a dwindling mosquito population are as easy as "try other food sources".
I actually agree that this would presumably be a good thing to do. However, that's not because "children dying == bad" but rather precisely because a decent amount of research appears to have been directed at this idea already.
My intent was not to question the merits of the stated goal, but instead to highlight the importance of critical analysis instead of emotionally based lines of thought.
And yet no plausible scenario is seriously identified to deliver such unintended consequences, so a net decrease of dead children is to be expected. That's past "good enough" in most people's book.
It helps that the effects would be indirect. Direct ones, like in the case of novel medicines, are scarier and harder to cope with. It's not easy to "try another body". But the indirect effect of, say, lower availability of certain food commodities due to bird and fish die-offs due to a dwindling mosquito population are as easy as "try other food sources".