4 ms·

By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either, because the car could have always set on fire, or exploded, or fallen into a spontaneous black hole etc. It’s st

by orf 3y ago

By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either, because the car could have always set on fire, or exploded, or fallen into a spontaneous black hole etc. It’s still a car crash regardless of the magnitude, and a collapse is still a collapse if it’s a small or a large one.

joefourier 3y ago
Well… a car crash is absolutely not binary. There’s a huge spectrum between a fender bender at low speed and a deadly multi-vehicle pile up on the motorway. And there’s a huge spectrum of injuries from whiplash, fractures, loss of limbs, and death. You absolutely can’t treat all car crashes as equal, same way you can’t treat all collapse as equal. The Soviet Union collapsed for instance, and the 90s were absolutely a struggle, but it didn’t mean all Russians regressed to subsistence agriculture and there was eventually a recovery. Its member states are still around, with some doing better than others (the Baltic states for instance).
ajross 3y ago
> By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either Uh... yes? Would you rather take a 50mph head on collision driving a 2023 Outback or a 1930 Model A? The point is that car crashes are indeed dangerous, and we've spent a century of engineering making them significantly (vastly, really) less so. And that's a good thing to be celebrated, and not rejected just because we don't want to get into crashes in the first place. Climate change mitigation follows the same ethical principles.
- orf 3y ago
  No idea, I don't drive. But both of those are a crash, regardless of the speed or model.
  - ajross 3y ago
    Then let me be clearer: one is a routine, eminently survivable collisoin that happens dozens of times every day, the other is a certain death sentence. They are different, and they are different because smart people cared to fix a problem they saw instead of just throwing up their hands in despair. To wit: if you genuinely care about this stuff, get off your ass and help instead of whining on the internet.
    - yreg 3y ago
      Both of the situations are car crashes. What are you even claiming?
      - ajross 3y ago
        That deaths in car crashes[1] are not a fait accompli and that their impact may be mitigated by careful engineering and hard work. And by extension, that fatalism regarding other problems[2] is subject to the same kind of solutions. And finally that using car crashes as a metaphor for other such problems[3], as the upthread poster did, is a poor analogy and actually supports the case for action, and not despair. [1] Actually climate change. It's a metaphor. [2] Climate change, again. [3] Yup.

by orf 3y ago

joefourier 3y ago

Well… a car crash is absolutely not binary. There’s a huge spectrum between a fender bender at low speed and a deadly multi-vehicle pile up on the motorway. And there’s a huge spectrum of injuries from whiplash, fractures, loss of limbs, and death. You absolutely can’t treat all car crashes as equal, same way you can’t treat all collapse as equal. The Soviet Union collapsed for instance, and the 90s were absolutely a struggle, but it didn’t mean all Russians regressed to subsistence agriculture and there was eventually a recovery. Its member states are still around, with some doing better than others (the Baltic states for instance).

ajross 3y ago

> By this logic a car crash isn’t binary either Uh... yes? Would you rather take a 50mph head on collision driving a 2023 Outback or a 1930 Model A? The point is that car crashes are indeed dangerous, and we've spent a century of engineering making them significantly (vastly, really) less so. And that's a good thing to be celebrated, and not rejected just because we don't want to get into crashes in the first place. Climate change mitigation follows the same ethical principles.

orf 3y ago
No idea, I don't drive. But both of those are a crash, regardless of the speed or model.
- ajross 3y ago
  Then let me be clearer: one is a routine, eminently survivable collisoin that happens dozens of times every day, the other is a certain death sentence. They are different, and they are different because smart people cared to fix a problem they saw instead of just throwing up their hands in despair. To wit: if you genuinely care about this stuff, get off your ass and help instead of whining on the internet.
  - yreg 3y ago
    Both of the situations are car crashes. What are you even claiming?
    - ajross 3y ago
      That deaths in car crashes[1] are not a fait accompli and that their impact may be mitigated by careful engineering and hard work. And by extension, that fatalism regarding other problems[2] is subject to the same kind of solutions. And finally that using car crashes as a metaphor for other such problems[3], as the upthread poster did, is a poor analogy and actually supports the case for action, and not despair. [1] Actually climate change. It's a metaphor. [2] Climate change, again. [3] Yup.