4 ms·

I can't remember where I read that, but someone had made an interesting observation that stayed with me, and your comment makes me think of it (perhaps you're r

I can't remember where I read that, but someone had made an interesting observation that stayed with me, and your comment makes me think of it (perhaps you're referring to the same article?) What if instead of slowly dying of cancer, smoking had a tiny tiny chance of making you die by exploding your face? Exact same probability of dying, just very violent and graphic. Chances are barely anyone would smoke. Yet, same death rate. To answer your point, I think smoking is worse than making your head explode, it has a much greater societal cost in healthcare than if you were to die there and then, and creates much more suffering.

coopierez 4y ago
Funny, I had the exact same thought over Covid death rates during the early pandemic. People would have been a lot less skeptical of the precautions if your head exploded immediately after catching it (assuming you were part of the ~1% that were destined to die from the symptoms eventually).
GingerMidas 4y ago
Not because of how violent and graphic, but because there's a chance the death is immediate. Cancer is always a long, long time away. It's like saying if you put $100 in your 401k every month, there's a chance (equal to the number of new retirees) you instantly get $2M dollars. Many more people would understand the immediate gain instead of the 30 year slog.
npteljes 4y ago
Fewer would smoke, but I'd wager it would be popular with the young. I think it all boils down to feedback. The more abstract something is, the harder it is to fathom. So if you lessen the feedback, by, for example, delaying the negative effects, people won't react. Take the other popular vice, alcohol. If hangover was immediately present, I don't think we would have the drinking culture that we have today. How many vow to never drink again, on the day after. Yet, people drink again.

coopierez 4y ago

Funny, I had the exact same thought over Covid death rates during the early pandemic. People would have been a lot less skeptical of the precautions if your head exploded immediately after catching it (assuming you were part of the ~1% that were destined to die from the symptoms eventually).

GingerMidas 4y ago

Not because of how violent and graphic, but because there's a chance the death is immediate. Cancer is always a long, long time away. It's like saying if you put $100 in your 401k every month, there's a chance (equal to the number of new retirees) you instantly get $2M dollars. Many more people would understand the immediate gain instead of the 30 year slog.

npteljes 4y ago

Fewer would smoke, but I'd wager it would be popular with the young. I think it all boils down to feedback. The more abstract something is, the harder it is to fathom. So if you lessen the feedback, by, for example, delaying the negative effects, people won't react. Take the other popular vice, alcohol. If hangover was immediately present, I don't think we would have the drinking culture that we have today. How many vow to never drink again, on the day after. Yet, people drink again.