3 ms·
No innovation can survive one-sided scrutiny of this type: you should at least factor in the number of children saved because of the availability of fast-movin
by ballenf 9y ago
No innovation can survive one-sided scrutiny of this type:
you should at least factor in the number of children saved because of the availability of fast-moving vehicles to get them timely help.
Given the steady rise of childhood life expectancies during our fall down this "rabbit hole", your logic breaks down pretty catastrophically. At least without more support than comparing the relative squishiness of these two objects.
- TeMPOraL 9y agoThat's a surprisingly good point, and it's the first time I've seen it brought up in discussions about car accidents here. I wonder if there are statistics out there estimating the amount of lives saved thanks to quick response enabled by cars (e.g. ambulances). OTOH, this can get quickly confounded with the second-order impact of cars - e.g. that medical facilities would be closer to people were it not for the possibility to deliver them there by car.
- sigstoat 9y ago> OTOH, this can get quickly confounded with the second-order impact of cars - e.g. that medical facilities would be closer to people were it not for the possibility to deliver them there by car. we've already got to use helicopters to flight-for-life folks from one hospital to another because it is impractical to build & staff enough of the specialized emergency medical care you might happen to need when something terrible happens. (not to mention all the certificate-of-need crap that keeps hospital availability artificially limited.)