3 ms·

Society has already accepted that there will be accidents and fatalities So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you h

Society has already accepted that there will be accidents and fatalities So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine :) But to finish it out, in 2020 farmers received $46.5 billion dollars in aid[1]. If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities? [1] Source: https://work.chron.com/much-subsidized-farmers-paid-20223.html https://work.chron.com/much-subsidized-farmers-paid-20223.ht...

giantg2 5y ago
'So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" ' Look at the laws and fatalities. It's clear that society accepts some fatalities. If they didn't, we would still be driving carriages or walking everywhere. Even the article on morality in this chain acknowledges that some fatalities are considered acceptable if the value derived is worth it. "I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine" It is genuine. "If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies" How would subsidies help? What about people raising livestock as a hobby? "instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?" How can you say it's the worst case to have larger vehicles like SUVs? One could view having only cars as having more negative externalities if it means preventing many people from doing the things they love? Especially if the pedestrian aspect can still be solved by other means, like reducing speed and safer city designs.

3 ms·

Society has already accepted that there will be accidents and fatalities So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you h

by jbigelow76 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago
'So society has accepted there will be accidents and fatalities? To quote you "Do you have a source?" ' Look at the laws and fatalities. It's clear that society accepts some fatalities. If they didn't, we would still be driving carriages or walking everywhere. Even the article on morality in this chain acknowledges that some fatalities are considered acceptable if the value derived is worth it. "I'm kidding, I know the livestock angle was never genuine" It is genuine. "If farmers transporting livestock is such a small percentage of actual use cases why not account for that in subsidies" How would subsidies help? What about people raising livestock as a hobby? "instead of saying that society has to normalize the scenario with the worst case negative externalities?" How can you say it's the worst case to have larger vehicles like SUVs? One could view having only cars as having more negative externalities if it means preventing many people from doing the things they love? Especially if the pedestrian aspect can still be solved by other means, like reducing speed and safer city designs.