I’m not sure that I see your point with relevance to the topic. Liking mobiles has nothing to do with whether it’s true that they cause cancer or not. I already addressed the point about degrees of certainty in the last post, so I won’t repeat myself here.
Those are two polar extremes of the spectrum. But what about all the intermediate cases of advancing medical science that goes against what is natural? Antibiotics, organ transplants, etc. If we were really set on not tampering with the natural scheme of things, we’d let those people die instead. Not exactly desirable. I don’t think we can make blanket statements about playing God, when there is a continuum of interference with natural systems. If you’re against in vitro meat, cloning organs, GM food, etc, you really need to say why these things could be bad in terms of consequences to human and animal well being.
I guess we’ll have to leave that issue alone then.
The banks were bailed out using tax payer money, as far as i’m aware. Although money can “grow” via inflation, it’s not simply a matter of saying “hey, I need a billion dollars now, let’s go and print off some new money.”