3 ms·

Am I understanding correctly that your argument is basically "fuck human lives if there's any barrier to making anything even a tad safer that will save some of

by sofixa 3y ago

Am I understanding correctly that your argument is basically "fuck human lives if there's any barrier to making anything even a tad safer that will save some of them"? Where does your logic stop? What about seat belts, how much do they cost to add to vehicles?? Or airbags? Or any of the other safety features that have already been added? Or to go out of cars, infrastructure design - do you know how much more it costs to make sure that bridge/building won't fall apart? Or how much it costs to have multiple exit points from venues with hundreds of people? Safety regulations are written in blood, lots of it.

zmgsabst 3y ago
Raising shipping costs increases food costs — doubling shipping causes 0.7% inflation. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/03/28/how-soaring-shipping-costs-raise-prices-around-the-world https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/03/28/how-soaring... There are 13,000,000+ households in the US which face challenges having enough food, at least once during the year. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... When you propose a change that makes food less efficient to ship, you increase the number of people who struggle to feed their families — and make the challenge worse for those who already are struggling. What the person you’re replying to is saying is that you have to balance the benefits (fewer truck crashes) against the costs (more hungry people) — and that such a choice isn’t nearly as simple as shallow histrionics, about how we must spend money to save lives! I think your shallow false dichotomy, rather than engaging with the fact that economics also costs lives and causes human suffering, is exactly the problem.

3 ms·

Am I understanding correctly that your argument is basically "fuck human lives if there's any barrier to making anything even a tad safer that will save some of

by sofixa 3y ago

zmgsabst 3y ago
Raising shipping costs increases food costs — doubling shipping causes 0.7% inflation. https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/03/28/how-soaring-shipping-costs-raise-prices-around-the-world https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/Articles/2022/03/28/how-soaring... There are 13,000,000+ households in the US which face challenges having enough food, at least once during the year. https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-u-s/key-statistics-graphics/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/fo... When you propose a change that makes food less efficient to ship, you increase the number of people who struggle to feed their families — and make the challenge worse for those who already are struggling. What the person you’re replying to is saying is that you have to balance the benefits (fewer truck crashes) against the costs (more hungry people) — and that such a choice isn’t nearly as simple as shallow histrionics, about how we must spend money to save lives! I think your shallow false dichotomy, rather than engaging with the fact that economics also costs lives and causes human suffering, is exactly the problem.