3 ms·
I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. It's an inherent characteristic of capitalism tha
by untog 7y ago
I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer.
It's an inherent characteristic of capitalism that the primary driver is profit. I mean, it's the whole point of the system. What is the value of one human life within this system? Historically that value has not been high.
Now, when people saying "publicly-funded investment" it's a popular conception that this means a vast amount of government waste, because everything the government does is wasteful, right? How is three or four companies spending huge amounts of money to pursue the exact same goal not wasteful?
Look at things like the internet itself. Public funding of technology can work.
- isostatic 7y agoIf * capitalistic automatic cars mean 2000 deaths per year, reducing linearly to zero after 10 years * socialist automatic cars eventually mean 1200 deaths per year, reducing to zero after 30 years * manual cars mean 1000 deaths per year, not reducing Then after 11 years total deaths will be the same in all 3 cases (11,000), but after 30 years it will be 11k capital, 18k socialist, and 30k and growing with no changes. However that's of no comfort to the families of who died in the start, especially the ones who didn't opt in (as was typical with flying when it was more dangerous).
- untog 7y agoIs there any real point in debating numbers like this that are just plucked from the air?
- isostatic 7y agoThe relevant point is > I don't think anyone is suggesting that publicly-funded investment would make this happen faster. Just safer. The point is that while it could be safer per year, being slower means that it's not safer.