4 ms·

Like with helicopter parenting, I think that by trying to avoid risk in this way you are giving up more than you are gaining - even though in isolation this mig

by tmnvix 9y ago

Like with helicopter parenting, I think that by trying to avoid risk in this way you are giving up more than you are gaining - even though in isolation this might seem like the rational choice. If everyone took your approach we would end up as a sharply segregated society where the public domain becomes the preserve of 'malicious actors' and those without the ability to avoid it. That would be a classic dystopia. These places exist. Seattle should not be one of them. Better to stand your ground in the public domain despite the risks. Your presence will make it a better and safer place for everyone.

mrep 9y ago
> If everyone took your approach we would end up as a sharply segregated society where the public domain becomes the preserve of 'malicious actors' and those without the ability to avoid it. When you frame it like that, isn't that kind of what it has already become? Cities are full of crime so people with money move to the suburbs where it is safer.
- tmnvix 9y ago
  To different degrees, yes. It happens in other areas of public life too. Public schools and healthcare systems are good examples. When wealthy people leave in preference for exclusive alternatives, the whole system suffers from their absence. There is probably a name for this phenomenon. It's a sort of reverse tragedy of the commons. > Cities are full of crime so people with money move to the suburbs where it is safer. I think this was happening most in the middle of last century. Now, inner-city areas around the world are being gentrified by wealthy people that (I believe) recognise the lack of communal life afforded by suburbs - things such as the day to day passing of friends and strangers in the street, at the local cafe or shops, and a generally higher level of engagement that's possible when you spend less of your 'public' time in a vehicle.

by tmnvix 9y ago

mrep 9y ago

> If everyone took your approach we would end up as a sharply segregated society where the public domain becomes the preserve of 'malicious actors' and those without the ability to avoid it. When you frame it like that, isn't that kind of what it has already become? Cities are full of crime so people with money move to the suburbs where it is safer.

tmnvix 9y ago
To different degrees, yes. It happens in other areas of public life too. Public schools and healthcare systems are good examples. When wealthy people leave in preference for exclusive alternatives, the whole system suffers from their absence. There is probably a name for this phenomenon. It's a sort of reverse tragedy of the commons. > Cities are full of crime so people with money move to the suburbs where it is safer. I think this was happening most in the middle of last century. Now, inner-city areas around the world are being gentrified by wealthy people that (I believe) recognise the lack of communal life afforded by suburbs - things such as the day to day passing of friends and strangers in the street, at the local cafe or shops, and a generally higher level of engagement that's possible when you spend less of your 'public' time in a vehicle.