5 ms·

There's a difference between playgrounds and work environments: as far as I am aware, workers aren't any more miserable in safer work environment. Children in "

There's a difference between playgrounds and work environments: as far as I am aware, workers aren't any more miserable in safer work environment. Children in "safer" playgrounds, are. The value of life is not infinite. It is perfectly reasonable to sacrifice a few to improve the conditions of the many. Funnier, riskier playgrounds do exactly that. That said, the article stated the "safer" playground engendered more injuries, mostly because bored kids were taking inconsiderate risks. The more dangerous playgrounds actually looked more dangerous, and the kids in them ended up taking less serious risks. There's a good chance that more "dangerous" playgrounds are a one sided win. They could be better than the "safe" ones even if you disagree with my first two paragraphs.

TomMarius 7y ago
> The value of life is not infinite. The whole western civilization is standing on the assumption that it is.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  This is observably not the case, in all sorts of situations. Violence, vehicles, medicine, pollution, etc, etc, etc. Of course we've gotten to a place where we spend lots of dollars preventing 1 statistical death, but not even tens of millions most of the time.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    I don't see how it's observably not the case when my mother is working in a hospital where people are kept alive for decades just for the slight chance that medicine might evolve enough to cure them or they just wake up one day; when they are spending extraordinary amounts of money and time of dozens of researchers and doctors on experimental treatments, etc. I don't understand how vehicles or pollution change anything. I never said there are no bad actors, there are in every civilization, and there are compromises you need to make but that doesn't mean you would not do anything to save someone. Awareness about pollution and its effects is just starting to exist. We didn't think it's bad a few decades ago.
- TheDong 7y ago
  The concept of a micromort [0] argues that people often to put a value on their life, at least probabilisticly. Valueing life is also not unique to western civilization. Yes, it values individualism highly, but confucian values are also highly concerned with humaneness and the value of life. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
- scarejunba 7y ago
  Assume this is true. The NHS is in the UK and run by the government. The NHS has a maximum spend on a single person. The UK is part of Western Civilization. Therefore it rests on the assumption that life has infinite value. Therefore, the UK will spend infinite money to ensure a person lives. A contradiction.
  - TomMarius 7y ago
    OK, that's the UK, I'm not sure why it split off; thank you for pointing it out. Any continental EU country will spend an unlimited amount of money to save someone. Even Ukraine will. Get your shit in the UK back together, I'd suggest. Suggesting a maximal spend in my country would immediately lead to a revolt and change of government.
    - Firadeoclus 7y ago
      While there may be no explicit limit there are practical limits on what will be done to help a single person. Unlimited is not the same as infinite.
a1369209993 7y ago
> The value of life is not infinite. Technically it is[0], but they're going to die in a century or so (if that) anyway, so anything that reduces quality of life enough is morally equivalent to killing them earlier. 0: at least to within measurement error
Noos 7y ago
...you are arguing we should sacrifice lives for fun. Not something particularly necessary, like how many here argue for self-driving cars in that way, but our kids are impoverished because gosh darn it, playgrounds aren't fun any more! I find it a very poor argument. The second part..eh, if true than there's merit to it, although I would wager dangerous ones would hurt far more. We did stupid stuff just as much as in the old days as in the new, but iron does hurt a lot more than plastic.

TomMarius 7y ago

> The value of life is not infinite. The whole western civilization is standing on the assumption that it is.

maxerickson 7y ago
This is observably not the case, in all sorts of situations. Violence, vehicles, medicine, pollution, etc, etc, etc. Of course we've gotten to a place where we spend lots of dollars preventing 1 statistical death, but not even tens of millions most of the time.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  I don't see how it's observably not the case when my mother is working in a hospital where people are kept alive for decades just for the slight chance that medicine might evolve enough to cure them or they just wake up one day; when they are spending extraordinary amounts of money and time of dozens of researchers and doctors on experimental treatments, etc. I don't understand how vehicles or pollution change anything. I never said there are no bad actors, there are in every civilization, and there are compromises you need to make but that doesn't mean you would not do anything to save someone. Awareness about pollution and its effects is just starting to exist. We didn't think it's bad a few decades ago.
TheDong 7y ago
The concept of a micromort [0] argues that people often to put a value on their life, at least probabilisticly. Valueing life is also not unique to western civilization. Yes, it values individualism highly, but confucian values are also highly concerned with humaneness and the value of life. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micromort
scarejunba 7y ago
Assume this is true. The NHS is in the UK and run by the government. The NHS has a maximum spend on a single person. The UK is part of Western Civilization. Therefore it rests on the assumption that life has infinite value. Therefore, the UK will spend infinite money to ensure a person lives. A contradiction.
- TomMarius 7y ago
  OK, that's the UK, I'm not sure why it split off; thank you for pointing it out. Any continental EU country will spend an unlimited amount of money to save someone. Even Ukraine will. Get your shit in the UK back together, I'd suggest. Suggesting a maximal spend in my country would immediately lead to a revolt and change of government.
  - Firadeoclus 7y ago
    While there may be no explicit limit there are practical limits on what will be done to help a single person. Unlimited is not the same as infinite.

a1369209993 7y ago

> The value of life is not infinite. Technically it is[0], but they're going to die in a century or so (if that) anyway, so anything that reduces quality of life enough is morally equivalent to killing them earlier. 0: at least to within measurement error

Noos 7y ago

...you are arguing we should sacrifice lives for fun. Not something particularly necessary, like how many here argue for self-driving cars in that way, but our kids are impoverished because gosh darn it, playgrounds aren't fun any more! I find it a very poor argument. The second part..eh, if true than there's merit to it, although I would wager dangerous ones would hurt far more. We did stupid stuff just as much as in the old days as in the new, but iron does hurt a lot more than plastic.