4 ms·

People born in the West after the near total eradication of Small Pox, Polio, Mumps, Marlia etc. have never really dealt with a disease that could be an existen

People born in the West after the near total eradication of Small Pox, Polio, Mumps, Marlia etc. have never really dealt with a disease that could be an existential threat. In fact, outside of being in the military or acting recklessly (both within control of the actor), most people born post-1970 have never really faced an external existential threat. I believe this lack of threat has warped our ability to calculate risk properly. We underestimate the risk posed by threats within our control (diet, drinking heavily, excessive drug use, driving dangerously) and greatly exaggerate the risk of external threats (pandemics, terrorism, being murdered randomly). I wonder if children in their formative years right now will be better at calculating external risk as they lived through what is ostensibly an existential risk that hasn't been experienced in decades. Or did the (arguable) overreaction of society screw their risk tolerance up more than ever?

watwut 5y ago
> believe this lack of threat has warped our ability to calculate risk properly. We underestimate the risk posed by threats within our control (diet, drinking heavily, excessive drug use, driving dangerously) The generation that grew with those existential threats drunk more, drove more dangerously, generally risked more and looked at healthy food as on something feminine and weak.
- PraetorianGourd 5y ago
  > healthy food as on something feminine and weak. Did they? It is also only within the last 100 years that we really had any _choice_ at all of what to eat. Before transportation revolutions, food was what was grown or slaughtered locally. > drove more dangerously Again, did they? Cars we more dangerous, no question there. But they were also made of steel that had no crumple ability, with terrible suspension and steering that was more akin to a boat than a modern, nimble car. > drunk more I don't know on this one. I think binge drinking is more prevalent now, as opposed to good ol' functioning alcoholism of days gone by. I am not sure which is more "dangerous". I think binge is more near-term dangerous while long-term abuse is more long-term dangerous (liver disease etc)
  - watwut 5y ago
    Yes they drove more dangerously. As in, taking risks while driving was cool fun thing. Not taking them made you look bad. As in drinking and driving was cool manly fun thing. Yes, they were more likely to be alcoholics. As in, drinking whole salary worth of alcohol and not functioning. As in, your health being affected by it severly. Actual alcoholism. As with food, 1921 was right after WWI. Food options were limited more by consequences of war and pauvrety, technologically you could eat basically whatever. But, ex soldiers treated the whole "I won't eat fat, sugar and what not, just to be healthy" as unmanly and spoiled.
    - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
      I honestly have no basis to agree or disagree with you. I know plenty of 16-28 year olds who drive dangerously and drive drunk/stoned these days too. That is all anecdotal evidence and thus I can't really use it as a basis for arguing _against_ what you say. But likewise I can't just take your claims at face value. I can easily drink my whole salary if I only drink 25+ year old single malt :)
      - watwut 5y ago
        Alcoholism rates are well studied. There is nothing anecdotal about it. Youth alcohol consumption is well studied. There are many studies on that too - youth now are drinking less then they used to. Google any of those. Youth deliquency rates are also not just subject of anecdotes. War generations had ... issues. They were violent way more among other things. The face value here is ideology: some people realy like to believe that wars and danger makes people better. They don't in reality. They traumatize people, desensitivise them, make them have issues.
        PraetorianGourd 5y ago
        Oh oh oh I was never intending to imply war and danger makes people "better" at all. As subjective as that is. My argument was directly relating to existential threats posed by disease and how removed those born in the past 60 years are from those dangers. This has undoubtedly changed our risk tolerance _for disease_ and arguably (and I don't have the answer at all) for other external factors. War is not the answer for building a resilient society at all, and my apologies if it seemed I was implying that it was.

watwut 5y ago

> believe this lack of threat has warped our ability to calculate risk properly. We underestimate the risk posed by threats within our control (diet, drinking heavily, excessive drug use, driving dangerously) The generation that grew with those existential threats drunk more, drove more dangerously, generally risked more and looked at healthy food as on something feminine and weak.

PraetorianGourd 5y ago
> healthy food as on something feminine and weak. Did they? It is also only within the last 100 years that we really had any _choice_ at all of what to eat. Before transportation revolutions, food was what was grown or slaughtered locally. > drove more dangerously Again, did they? Cars we more dangerous, no question there. But they were also made of steel that had no crumple ability, with terrible suspension and steering that was more akin to a boat than a modern, nimble car. > drunk more I don't know on this one. I think binge drinking is more prevalent now, as opposed to good ol' functioning alcoholism of days gone by. I am not sure which is more "dangerous". I think binge is more near-term dangerous while long-term abuse is more long-term dangerous (liver disease etc)
- watwut 5y ago
  Yes they drove more dangerously. As in, taking risks while driving was cool fun thing. Not taking them made you look bad. As in drinking and driving was cool manly fun thing. Yes, they were more likely to be alcoholics. As in, drinking whole salary worth of alcohol and not functioning. As in, your health being affected by it severly. Actual alcoholism. As with food, 1921 was right after WWI. Food options were limited more by consequences of war and pauvrety, technologically you could eat basically whatever. But, ex soldiers treated the whole "I won't eat fat, sugar and what not, just to be healthy" as unmanly and spoiled.
  - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
    I honestly have no basis to agree or disagree with you. I know plenty of 16-28 year olds who drive dangerously and drive drunk/stoned these days too. That is all anecdotal evidence and thus I can't really use it as a basis for arguing _against_ what you say. But likewise I can't just take your claims at face value. I can easily drink my whole salary if I only drink 25+ year old single malt :)
    - watwut 5y ago
      Alcoholism rates are well studied. There is nothing anecdotal about it. Youth alcohol consumption is well studied. There are many studies on that too - youth now are drinking less then they used to. Google any of those. Youth deliquency rates are also not just subject of anecdotes. War generations had ... issues. They were violent way more among other things. The face value here is ideology: some people realy like to believe that wars and danger makes people better. They don't in reality. They traumatize people, desensitivise them, make them have issues.
      - PraetorianGourd 5y ago
        Oh oh oh I was never intending to imply war and danger makes people "better" at all. As subjective as that is. My argument was directly relating to existential threats posed by disease and how removed those born in the past 60 years are from those dangers. This has undoubtedly changed our risk tolerance _for disease_ and arguably (and I don't have the answer at all) for other external factors. War is not the answer for building a resilient society at all, and my apologies if it seemed I was implying that it was.