5 ms·
You're misusing statistics. Your life expectancy is not being lowered by .0001, but 124 out of 1,000,000 lose their life each year through something preventabl
by tenebrisalietum 5y ago
You're misusing statistics. Your life expectancy is not being lowered by .0001, but 124 out of 1,000,000 lose their life each year through something preventable. This is the cost of your "near-absolute freedom of movement" that you are trying to hide.
- rootusrootus 5y agoYou're more likely to die by falling. And a good bit more likely to die by suicide. I don't know anybody in my family or circle of acquaintances who have died from any of the above, however.
- Sharlin 5y agoIs it so difficult to understand that killing others involves a totally different moral equation than killing yourself?
- rootusrootus 5y agoAlmost everything you do involves some amount of risk to others.
- Sharlin 5y agoWhich is, obviously, not an argument against regulating those activities whose risk to others is particularly high. See: false equivalence.
- wyager 5y agoMaybe if you have a busted moral calculus. Any number of coherent utilitarian models don’t require ad-hoc application of different rules to different people.
- wyager 5y agoChanges in individual life expectancy and number of expected deaths per year are dual quantities. Talking about either one is fine. That said, you’re right that it’s not actually 0.0001, but probably closer to 0.004. So if I live for 80 years I’m giving up maybe 4 months of EL. Still an easy trade.