4 ms·
>E.g. if we took the extreme measure of banning any and all vehicles, period, then millions of people might die because economic networks sustaining society wou
by magduf 7y ago
>E.g. if we took the extreme measure of banning any and all vehicles, period, then millions of people might die because economic networks sustaining society would collapse.
There's plenty of cities outside the US where most people do not use personal cars to get around, and where it's perfectly safe to get around by bike. Just look at Amsterdam and Copenhagen. The economies there are doing just fine, and much better in fact than many American cities.
- the8472 7y agoI was literal about any and all vehicles. That includes delivery trucks and trains. And bicycles. Bicycle accidents can kill people. So if 240 children killed by vehicles is too many and we set a goal no other than perfection then we have to get rid of vehicles. Or we accept a statistic greater than zero.
- Reason077 7y agoWe don’t need to ban vehicles. Just put greater emphasis on making roads, and vehicles, much safer.
- the8472 7y agoOk, the magical fairy has implemented the measures you had in mind, now 24 instead of 245 children die every year. Is it still too many? If yes, where exactly does too many stop?
- Reason077 7y agoGoing from 245 to 24 would be an enormous success. So long as there are practical technologies and designs to improve safety, and there are many, then yes - zero should remain the goal.
- the8472 7y ago> So long as there are practical technologies and designs to improve safety [...] Sure, this is a reasonable condition since "practical" subsumes about any caveat. But it is fundamentally incompatible with: > zero should remain the goal. You can asymptotically approach zero, but you cannot reach zero. So setting it as goal is aiming for something unachievable and thus a policy failure. It would be better to set goals that are actually achievable within some timeframe.
- magduf 7y agoThis is an idiotic strawman argument. People don't get killed by trains and bicycles in remotely near the numbers that they do by cars, especially when you count all the people killed in car accidents. Your entire argument is "we can't completely eliminate ALL deaths from any vehicle of any kind, so we need to keep our society car-based."
- the8472 7y ago> People don't get killed by trains and bicycles in remotely near the numbers that they do by cars, especially when you count all the people killed in car accidents. I never said the amount is equal. > Your entire argument is "we can't completely eliminate ALL deaths from any vehicle of any kind, so we need to keep our society car-based." Not at all. Neither did I say we cannot reduce the number. I said too many is not a useful statement. That is all this is about. Too many does not tell us what the correct tradeoff is. My concern is that people only see a number and want it go down to zero without taking pareto efficiency into account.