4 ms·

>But ask any parent that has lost a child. It's absolutely devastating. I know a number of them. I never, ever want to tell them that their child's life is wort

>But ask any parent that has lost a child. It's absolutely devastating. I know a number of them. I never, ever want to tell them that their child's life is worth less than my freedom from inconvenience. Sure, but when safety is the primary concern then nothing gets done. Too many car accidents? Just ban cars. You can't have a car accident if there are no cars. If safety is your primary goal, then surely something small like "getting from A to B faster" is a small price to pay for the life of a child! But this isn't feasible. You can't run a society based on this concern. Everything we do carries risks. Some are more hidden, others are more accepted and for some reason we single out specific risks and become unreasonable about them. We selectively pick and choose what we're outraged about in the name of safety.

awb 5y ago
> Sure, but when safety is the primary concern then nothing gets done. Too many car accidents? Just ban cars. You can't have a car accident if there are no cars. I think you’re missing the part of these debates that is an honest conversation about utility and how to balance the needs of the group vs. the needs of the individual. That’s why we both care about car safety and don’t ban cars. It doesn’t have to be as extreme as either A) No safety rules, maximum freedom. Or B) Maximum safety, no freedom. The middle option is what you see a lot: some safety, some freedom. That’s why you have cars with airbags and kid’s chemistry sets without hazardous materials. Some safety, some freedom. You can debate about the utility, but I doubt anyone in the pro-50s chemistry kit camp would be OK with including radioactive isotopes or deadly viruses. At some point the learning experience isn’t worth the risk at which point you’ve gone through the exact same thought process: how much safety do I want vs. how much freedom? So I think we all agree there needs to be some safety concerns, the question is where and that will always be a grey area with no right or wrong answer. Everyone’s utility will be slightly different. But just questioning safety as a goal itself doesn’t make much sense IMO. We all want safety and we all want freedom, just different amounts of each.
elil17 5y ago
I mean, cars are the most dangerous way to travel. I think it would be better if we could build cities that didn't have cars.
- screenbreakout 5y ago
  But are we not then taking the slippery slope of an infantilisation of society? surely we need to round the sharp edges, but eliminating danger, you do away with adaptability, reaction time, self responsibility, fun.... I rollerblade on the road, some people drive dangerously just because they don't like I'm not following the rules... Also was just in Egypt, I highly enjoyed jaywalking there, less so being a car/minibus passenger , saw what looked like 6 year olds on motorcycles with their friends, kids driving cars, preteens at the helms of trucks...were there more accidents? maybe not, dunno, maybe the lack of alcohol is a reason... but ultimately I agree huge zones with no cars in cities, more space, cleaner air, less danger...
  - watwut 5y ago
    1.) People who drive dangerously are danger to others. 2.) Cities that don't require cars to move in are raising freedom of both kids and adults living in them. It means kids go by themselves to places sooner. It means old people are not so locked. It means parents don't have to be taxi drivers every time kid wants to try a hobby.
    - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
      I used to travel, regularly, to Tokyo. The corporate headquarters that I traveled to, on a train, had a girls’ school, next to it. I would often be on the train, packed with commuters, and see these tiny little girls, in their school uniforms, maybe seven or eight years old, alone, on the train. One of the big reasons that this was possible, is because of the civil and social infrastructure of Japanese society. This structure is one that many Americans would find stifling —for good reason, but it also means that elementary school girls can take the train, alone, to school, everyday.
      - watwut 5y ago
        You don't even have to go to Japan. In Germany, first graders go to school alone too. Same in Switzerland - sometimes even younger kids. I think that United States with the 11-12 years old is considered too young to go to school alone is the outlier.
tristor 5y ago
> Sure, but when safety is the primary concern then nothing gets done. Incidentally, this is part of the reason why it is cheaper, faster, and easier to build large infrastructure projects outside the West, and why the rate of innovation slows as societies go from developing to developed. Basically, there's some (possibly defined?) sociological cut-off point where societies become more concerned for safety vs possible benefits of the risks they take and eliminate the risk-taking possibility altogether. Before that cut-off point, "life is cheap", and that has all sorts of benefits and detriments for society, after that cut-off point "life is priceless", and that has all sorts of benefits and detriments to society. Like anything, it seems it's a trade-off without a clear "best" way to do things.

awb 5y ago

> Sure, but when safety is the primary concern then nothing gets done. Too many car accidents? Just ban cars. You can't have a car accident if there are no cars. I think you’re missing the part of these debates that is an honest conversation about utility and how to balance the needs of the group vs. the needs of the individual. That’s why we both care about car safety and don’t ban cars. It doesn’t have to be as extreme as either A) No safety rules, maximum freedom. Or B) Maximum safety, no freedom. The middle option is what you see a lot: some safety, some freedom. That’s why you have cars with airbags and kid’s chemistry sets without hazardous materials. Some safety, some freedom. You can debate about the utility, but I doubt anyone in the pro-50s chemistry kit camp would be OK with including radioactive isotopes or deadly viruses. At some point the learning experience isn’t worth the risk at which point you’ve gone through the exact same thought process: how much safety do I want vs. how much freedom? So I think we all agree there needs to be some safety concerns, the question is where and that will always be a grey area with no right or wrong answer. Everyone’s utility will be slightly different. But just questioning safety as a goal itself doesn’t make much sense IMO. We all want safety and we all want freedom, just different amounts of each.

elil17 5y ago

I mean, cars are the most dangerous way to travel. I think it would be better if we could build cities that didn't have cars.

screenbreakout 5y ago
But are we not then taking the slippery slope of an infantilisation of society? surely we need to round the sharp edges, but eliminating danger, you do away with adaptability, reaction time, self responsibility, fun.... I rollerblade on the road, some people drive dangerously just because they don't like I'm not following the rules... Also was just in Egypt, I highly enjoyed jaywalking there, less so being a car/minibus passenger , saw what looked like 6 year olds on motorcycles with their friends, kids driving cars, preteens at the helms of trucks...were there more accidents? maybe not, dunno, maybe the lack of alcohol is a reason... but ultimately I agree huge zones with no cars in cities, more space, cleaner air, less danger...
- watwut 5y ago
  1.) People who drive dangerously are danger to others. 2.) Cities that don't require cars to move in are raising freedom of both kids and adults living in them. It means kids go by themselves to places sooner. It means old people are not so locked. It means parents don't have to be taxi drivers every time kid wants to try a hobby.
  - ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
    I used to travel, regularly, to Tokyo. The corporate headquarters that I traveled to, on a train, had a girls’ school, next to it. I would often be on the train, packed with commuters, and see these tiny little girls, in their school uniforms, maybe seven or eight years old, alone, on the train. One of the big reasons that this was possible, is because of the civil and social infrastructure of Japanese society. This structure is one that many Americans would find stifling —for good reason, but it also means that elementary school girls can take the train, alone, to school, everyday.
    - watwut 5y ago
      You don't even have to go to Japan. In Germany, first graders go to school alone too. Same in Switzerland - sometimes even younger kids. I think that United States with the 11-12 years old is considered too young to go to school alone is the outlier.

tristor 5y ago

> Sure, but when safety is the primary concern then nothing gets done. Incidentally, this is part of the reason why it is cheaper, faster, and easier to build large infrastructure projects outside the West, and why the rate of innovation slows as societies go from developing to developed. Basically, there's some (possibly defined?) sociological cut-off point where societies become more concerned for safety vs possible benefits of the risks they take and eliminate the risk-taking possibility altogether. Before that cut-off point, "life is cheap", and that has all sorts of benefits and detriments for society, after that cut-off point "life is priceless", and that has all sorts of benefits and detriments to society. Like anything, it seems it's a trade-off without a clear "best" way to do things.