4 ms·
Indeed, they do sound the same. They are not. If I buy a lotto ticket, I have a chance to avoid losing. If I win, it's over. If I lose, it's over. It's only go
by nulbyte 10y ago
Indeed, they do sound the same. They are not.
If I buy a lotto ticket, I have a chance to avoid losing. If I win, it's over. If I lose, it's over. It's only good for one drawing.
However, I have some risk of cancer as long as I am alive. I may be able to do things to reduce that risk, but my chances are infinite as long as I breath. I can choose not to play the lotto, but I can't choose not to get cancer.
- Fnoord 10y agoLet us assume the goal of a human is to 'lead a long and happy life'. The chance you win the jackpot with Lotto is miniscule. It is basically so small, that it isn't worth the investment. You're better off not taking that chance because the risk isn't worth the reward. These games are, basically, fallacies designed to manipulate humans, tricking them into behaviour they should not [logically] resort to. With cancer, you have genetic risks to get (certain types of) cancer, sure. However, for example living next to a highway increases the chance you get cancer. So, not living there increases your chance of not getting cancer [at a young(er) stage of your life]. Which increases the goal of human life as we agreed upon. So I agree they're not the same, but your example of Lotto (or similar games) I find rather bad. I think with regards to cancer this is related to risk/reward. People take risks such as speeding, eating overburned food, or living near a highway. They feel the risk is worth the reward, and they live under the assumption they get away with it.