4 ms·

Is that actually the problem though? Or is it that you are still here discussing of ways to prevent airplane hijacking in a world where cows still kill more peo

by oAlbe 7y ago

Is that actually the problem though? Or is it that you are still here discussing of ways to prevent airplane hijacking in a world where cows still kill more people that airplane hijacking terrorists? I don't mean to come across as condescending, I believe that as long as we spend our time talking about possible "solutions" to what-if, abstract problems, without addressing the real issues, we are just going to waste our time.

marcoperaza 7y ago
This is a pretty absurd thing to say. Natural or accidental deaths are different than planned attacks. There is no shortage of murderous, suicidal people. If you made it easier for them, more of them would go for it. The 3 successful attacks on 9/11 contributed something like an extra 20% to the US murder rate. That’s not insignificant. Also, we do spend an enormous amount of money on safety in the US. Why do you think the absolute cheapest new cars in the US are two to four times as expensive as new cars in countries that don’t have the same kind of safety standards (e.g. Mexico or India)? And because of the tort system, businesses spend untold amounts of money making their facilities and products safer in general.
austhrow743 7y ago
Lot of people in the world and the commenters in this thread are not the worlds reduce death task force. Speculating on how to secure planes here has zero impact on others speculating about how to make cows less dangerous.
- threatofrain 7y ago
  No but IMO the motivation to speak in these matters probably owes more to reducing death than specifically securing an airplane. Similarly, if someone is talking about chemical X in food, they are likely concerned with their health in general as opposed to a specific cause of chemical X. It would be a bit distracted to worry about chemical X when there are way more pressing issues on where to shine the limited spotlight of attention. Let those who are concerned with health speak to the spending of precious attention, and let those who are concerned with X discuss the loss of focus on X. Somewhere people will switch sides and a meta conversation will form in terms of resource allocation and framing.

by oAlbe 7y ago

marcoperaza 7y ago

This is a pretty absurd thing to say. Natural or accidental deaths are different than planned attacks. There is no shortage of murderous, suicidal people. If you made it easier for them, more of them would go for it. The 3 successful attacks on 9/11 contributed something like an extra 20% to the US murder rate. That’s not insignificant. Also, we do spend an enormous amount of money on safety in the US. Why do you think the absolute cheapest new cars in the US are two to four times as expensive as new cars in countries that don’t have the same kind of safety standards (e.g. Mexico or India)? And because of the tort system, businesses spend untold amounts of money making their facilities and products safer in general.

austhrow743 7y ago

Lot of people in the world and the commenters in this thread are not the worlds reduce death task force. Speculating on how to secure planes here has zero impact on others speculating about how to make cows less dangerous.

threatofrain 7y ago
No but IMO the motivation to speak in these matters probably owes more to reducing death than specifically securing an airplane. Similarly, if someone is talking about chemical X in food, they are likely concerned with their health in general as opposed to a specific cause of chemical X. It would be a bit distracted to worry about chemical X when there are way more pressing issues on where to shine the limited spotlight of attention. Let those who are concerned with health speak to the spending of precious attention, and let those who are concerned with X discuss the loss of focus on X. Somewhere people will switch sides and a meta conversation will form in terms of resource allocation and framing.