10 ms·

Yes the authors here really sound like this is an argument to relax the car seat age, but that sounds like a ridiculous argument to me. Do you think we should

Yes the authors here really sound like this is an argument to relax the car seat age, but that sounds like a ridiculous argument to me. Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid?

samcheng 6y ago
It's just an insightful paper of an effect, well-proven and thought provoking. I don't think they are advocating for fewer car seats.
Thlom 6y ago
On the other hand, how many kids are killed by huge SUV's bought to fit the third child seat where the driver can't see a children in front of their car?
lrem 6y ago
"Kill" is a very strong exaggeration though. Pretty much all the proper research I've ever stumbled upon claimed no measurable effect of child car seats or booster seats over the age of 8. First hit from Google today: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180105124030.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180105124030.h...
rmtech 6y ago
> Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid? Yes, it seems like a great deal to me. EDIT: Though I guess you could see it as a form of eugenics; "pay this much in order to have a third child"; but then it probably disproportionately hits middle class families rather than those who are at the very bottom. Many things are like this.
542354234235 6y ago
We don’t mandate 5 point harnesses in all vehicles, even though they would save far more than 57 lives. Life is a never ending risk calculation and a constant tradeoff between safety and convenience. There is a point where everyone would stop making additional tradeoffs but that is not the same as active killing.
- sellyme 6y ago
  And here there's no tradeoff. Saving 57 lives and having 8000 fewer births are both net positives.

samcheng 6y ago

It's just an insightful paper of an effect, well-proven and thought provoking. I don't think they are advocating for fewer car seats.

Thlom 6y ago

On the other hand, how many kids are killed by huge SUV's bought to fit the third child seat where the driver can't see a children in front of their car?

lrem 6y ago

"Kill" is a very strong exaggeration though. Pretty much all the proper research I've ever stumbled upon claimed no measurable effect of child car seats or booster seats over the age of 8. First hit from Google today: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180105124030.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180105124030.h...

rmtech 6y ago

> Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid? Yes, it seems like a great deal to me. EDIT: Though I guess you could see it as a form of eugenics; "pay this much in order to have a third child"; but then it probably disproportionately hits middle class families rather than those who are at the very bottom. Many things are like this.

542354234235 6y ago

We don’t mandate 5 point harnesses in all vehicles, even though they would save far more than 57 lives. Life is a never ending risk calculation and a constant tradeoff between safety and convenience. There is a point where everyone would stop making additional tradeoffs but that is not the same as active killing.

sellyme 6y ago
And here there's no tradeoff. Saving 57 lives and having 8000 fewer births are both net positives.