3 ms·

> Public safety costs are a sunk cost, they will exist regardless. No. Overtime, helicopter flight hours aren't a sunk cost. > Society should bear the cost of

> Public safety costs are a sunk cost, they will exist regardless. No. Overtime, helicopter flight hours aren't a sunk cost. > Society should bear the cost of reasonable exploration efforts by citizens, even by those who are unknowingly underprepared. The issue here is in that one important word: reasonable. Exploring your neighborhood? Certainly. Exploring a mine shaft without a rope? Maybe a bit less so? > The best way to learn is to do. Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring".

toomuchtodo 6y ago
> Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring". These are all valid forms of education, but all suboptimal to going through the motions. You should strive to be prepared, but also assume you don't know everything you need to know and de-risk accordingly.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Of course, but the original comment was about the guys doing virtually nothing to be prepared, that is "I'm going to live in the remote wilderness. I have a sleeping bag and a pound of rice, what else could I possibly need". There's always some risk in everything, it cannot be avoided, but we really don't need people to learn by doing it from zero understanding of that risk, we have plenty of things they can learn from the comfort of their bed. If they then still want to go do the real thing, they'll be much less likely to require rescuing, because they will not just walk into the woods without a map going "I'll just use Google Maps if I get lost".
ghaff 6y ago
You posit two examples at pretty far poles of the risk equation. How about doing winter hiking up high peaks in the Northeast US? Or whitewater kayaking? Or rock climbing?
- luckylion 6y ago
  I'd say that also depends on how you're prepared. If you don't want to prepare or think safety is boring and you want that extra kick of adrenaline, sure, go for it, but I'd also prefer if you make sure that you're not going to be requiring a rescue operation and a life time of support for that little extra kick. Or we could just tax it accordingly so it gets pretty expensive to do, but the risk is priced in. Want to remove the helmet and swimming vest or go winter hiking naked? Sure, just pay here and off you go.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm assuming people are at least reasonably well prepared (while understanding that many aren't). But there is a level of danger in any case.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      You should read the linked PDF about the people the comments were about. It's not about the reasonably well prepared people. Reasonably well prepared people don't go into the woods unprepared to live off the land with no tools, no shelter, no knowledge what is edible and what is not, and no way to deal with bears.

toomuchtodo 6y ago

> Or ask people that know stuff. Or read a book, or a pamphlet. There's plenty of options other than "whatever, the other will take care of me, I don't want to think and prepare, preparation is boring". These are all valid forms of education, but all suboptimal to going through the motions. You should strive to be prepared, but also assume you don't know everything you need to know and de-risk accordingly.

luckylion 6y ago
Of course, but the original comment was about the guys doing virtually nothing to be prepared, that is "I'm going to live in the remote wilderness. I have a sleeping bag and a pound of rice, what else could I possibly need". There's always some risk in everything, it cannot be avoided, but we really don't need people to learn by doing it from zero understanding of that risk, we have plenty of things they can learn from the comfort of their bed. If they then still want to go do the real thing, they'll be much less likely to require rescuing, because they will not just walk into the woods without a map going "I'll just use Google Maps if I get lost".

ghaff 6y ago

You posit two examples at pretty far poles of the risk equation. How about doing winter hiking up high peaks in the Northeast US? Or whitewater kayaking? Or rock climbing?

luckylion 6y ago
I'd say that also depends on how you're prepared. If you don't want to prepare or think safety is boring and you want that extra kick of adrenaline, sure, go for it, but I'd also prefer if you make sure that you're not going to be requiring a rescue operation and a life time of support for that little extra kick. Or we could just tax it accordingly so it gets pretty expensive to do, but the risk is priced in. Want to remove the helmet and swimming vest or go winter hiking naked? Sure, just pay here and off you go.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I'm assuming people are at least reasonably well prepared (while understanding that many aren't). But there is a level of danger in any case.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    You should read the linked PDF about the people the comments were about. It's not about the reasonably well prepared people. Reasonably well prepared people don't go into the woods unprepared to live off the land with no tools, no shelter, no knowledge what is edible and what is not, and no way to deal with bears.