I don't understand why comparing to needlessly unsafe workplaces of the past (or inherently dangerous jobs of the present) is useful. Is your argument about mor

I don't understand why comparing to needlessly unsafe workplaces of the past (or inherently dangerous jobs of the present) is useful. Is your argument about more than just the semantics of what constitutes "extremely dangerous"? The point being made is that the number of deaths attributable to grocery shopping (!) will rise sharply due to these ventures. Would you support a policy that every employer over 10000 employees has to sacrificially murder an employee annually (0.01% fatality rate per year), because "it's not as dangerous as being a policeman so it's fine"?