3 ms·

> When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on th

> When we go the other way, and allow actions that harm people, we have an unfortunate tendency to allow those harms to fall… extremely disproportionately on those with the least burden to bear the harms and the least power to be compensated for those harms. I don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious. Are prescribed-burns-gone-wrong more likely to harm the most vulnerable, as compared to unprescribed burns? If not, then this objection doesn't really apply.

evo 3y ago
I suspect that they would, if for no other reason that if the direct action is indiscriminate in whom it harms, then the well-heeled will have the resources necessary to seek compensation via litigation while the marginalized will be out of luck.
somenameforme 3y ago
In general I'd be in agreement with you, but I think this is one case where the typical argument is quite clearly true. I've lived in regions with slash and burn agriculture, which uses seasonal controlled burns. It is horrible. Air quality levels spike into the hundreds for a period of weeks to months, depending on the specifics of the season. It's difficult to tolerate in my hoity toity life with indoor work, air conditioning, and multiple air purifiers [barely] managing to keep the air breathable. At the same time this is happening, there are countless people working outdoors or in other sorts of conditions where they don't have such luxuries. And the cost is masked because, somewhat like smoking, many of the consequences happen over many years if not decades. And even when you do hit a climax, it may be argued that the bad air contributed, but did not provably cause, e.g. some cardiovascular event. Of course, if you don't burn - then a lightning strike, or a firebug, means you're going to really burn. Clearly we need an army of sheep. Gah, then people would complain about the methane and massive marbled mutton fests. Cripes things are tricky.
vkou 3y ago
> I don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious. Texas capped medical malpractice damages, because surely, all the frivilous lawsuits were the reason for driving up medical costs. This resulted in gems like this guy maiming dozens of people[1]. You couldn't sue him, because lawyers aren't going to front their own money to take on a case like this, when the likely awards will exceed legal costs. Hospitals wouldn't fire him, because he'd sue them, and because they get a share of the business he brings in. Other surgeons couldn't pooh-pooh him, because he'd sue them. Presumably, if he maimed someone who had enough out-of-pocket money to pay a lawyer, and then vindictively pursue litigation against him, this could have been resolved earlier. That's a lot of 'if's. In practice, he just... Kept on maiming people, shielded by protection from financial liability. [1] https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/november/christopher-duntsch-dr-death/ https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/novem...
ncallaway 3y ago
> Are prescribed-burns-gone-wrong more likely to harm the most vulnerable, as compared to unprescribed burns? Yes. Because those planning the controlled burns will take more care in ensuring the politically powerful are not as likely to be harmed by the burns. If a controlled burn goes wrong it's more likely to fall on those who have less power. Also, if the politically powerful are negatively impacted by the burns, their losses are more likely to be adequately socialized, while those that lack political power are more likely to bear the costs directly and individually.

evo 3y ago

I suspect that they would, if for no other reason that if the direct action is indiscriminate in whom it harms, then the well-heeled will have the resources necessary to seek compensation via litigation while the marginalized will be out of luck.

somenameforme 3y ago

In general I'd be in agreement with you, but I think this is one case where the typical argument is quite clearly true. I've lived in regions with slash and burn agriculture, which uses seasonal controlled burns. It is horrible. Air quality levels spike into the hundreds for a period of weeks to months, depending on the specifics of the season. It's difficult to tolerate in my hoity toity life with indoor work, air conditioning, and multiple air purifiers [barely] managing to keep the air breathable. At the same time this is happening, there are countless people working outdoors or in other sorts of conditions where they don't have such luxuries. And the cost is masked because, somewhat like smoking, many of the consequences happen over many years if not decades. And even when you do hit a climax, it may be argued that the bad air contributed, but did not provably cause, e.g. some cardiovascular event. Of course, if you don't burn - then a lightning strike, or a firebug, means you're going to really burn. Clearly we need an army of sheep. Gah, then people would complain about the methane and massive marbled mutton fests. Cripes things are tricky.

vkou 3y ago

> I don't think this is true, or at least it is nonobvious. Texas capped medical malpractice damages, because surely, all the frivilous lawsuits were the reason for driving up medical costs. This resulted in gems like this guy maiming dozens of people[1]. You couldn't sue him, because lawyers aren't going to front their own money to take on a case like this, when the likely awards will exceed legal costs. Hospitals wouldn't fire him, because he'd sue them, and because they get a share of the business he brings in. Other surgeons couldn't pooh-pooh him, because he'd sue them. Presumably, if he maimed someone who had enough out-of-pocket money to pay a lawyer, and then vindictively pursue litigation against him, this could have been resolved earlier. That's a lot of 'if's. In practice, he just... Kept on maiming people, shielded by protection from financial liability. [1] https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/november/christopher-duntsch-dr-death/ https://www.dmagazine.com/publications/d-magazine/2016/novem...

ncallaway 3y ago

> Are prescribed-burns-gone-wrong more likely to harm the most vulnerable, as compared to unprescribed burns? Yes. Because those planning the controlled burns will take more care in ensuring the politically powerful are not as likely to be harmed by the burns. If a controlled burn goes wrong it's more likely to fall on those who have less power. Also, if the politically powerful are negatively impacted by the burns, their losses are more likely to be adequately socialized, while those that lack political power are more likely to bear the costs directly and individually.