2 ms·

Yes, it's counterintuitive to many people that "the optimal amount of $BAD_THING is non-zero" for a rather large set of possible values for BAD_THING. "You can

Yes, it's counterintuitive to many people that "the optimal amount of $BAD_THING is non-zero" for a rather large set of possible values for BAD_THING. "You can't put a price on human life" is one common occurrence of this. I thought it was just a throwaway phrase, or a wish of how things could be, but I've regularly run into people who don't understand why we would ever fail to spend absurdly large amounts of money to save a single life. I have had people say "Is the only reason we aren't doing something about X money" for various forms of X. I personally spent over an hour walking one such person through the concept of opportunity costs, the fact that money is representative of value, &c. with the conversation ending with them still certain that the US Government could just print a trillion dollars and solve the problem. I have talked to people who honestly think that every person with depression should be forcibly committed to prevent them from committing suicide and respond to the "but only a fraction of those people have suicidal ideation, and only a fraction of those commit suicide" with a "if it saves just one life, it's worth it!" So forcibly committing 8% of the adult population is not too high a cost in their minds.

redeeman 3y ago
because they somehow have this idea that they own the rights to control others. Once you consider that you can force others to do anything, regardless of reason, you can begin to rationalize anything, and it will be "for the greater good" or "for their own good". They probably even sincerely mean it too. some kind of bald man once quoted someone: "With the first link, a chain is forged..."
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  > because they somehow have this idea that they own the rights to control others The flip side, of course, being the folks who believe they somehow have no responsibility for how they use their rights to impact others. Society can only function with at least some balance between these two extremes. Some of us need a little bit of chain.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    you cannot perform crimes on others, thats about it. If someone comes to my house dying of cold, they have no right to demand I help them. I would be an asshole if I dont, and I think people SHOULD help, but you have no right to demand I do (and again, not saying I wouldnt, just that nobody gets to be entitled to it)
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      Unfortunately, we encounter far more complex scenarios, from "can the car dealership dump engine oil into the creek behind their maintenance bay?" to "we sold a product that provably killed thousands of people, but none in a way that can cause us direct individual liability". Societally, we've largely decided we're all better off without a pile of frozen bodies at our door.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  > Once you consider that you can force others to do anything, regardless of reason, you can begin to rationalize anything, and it will be "for the greater good" or "for their own good". They probably even sincerely mean it too. Eh, I know lots of people who are neither anarchists nor totalitarians, so I'm not sure this is true.
  - redeeman 3y ago
    i said you CAN begin to rationalize... I didnt say most would do it about everything, but as is clearly evidenced here, many would about a great many things. "Red cars are more involved in traffic accidents, I therefore think you must be a murderous lunatic if you get a red car, and we cant have that, so lets forbid it"
czl 3y ago
> Yes, it's counterintuitive to many people that "the optimal amount of $BAD_THING is non-zero" for a rather large set of possible values for BAD_THING. How much "earth is sterilized" risk is reasonable per year?
mlyle 3y ago
Well, the optimal quantity for many things is actually zero. It's the edge cases-- the things where it's really hard to get rid of and we get some useful benefit from the related activity-- where it's nonzero. Of course, those edge cases are our biggest world problems-- for example, pollution, because pollution abatement is hard and the industry and commerce that produces pollution is beneficial... or fraud, because fraud protection is hard and the industry and commerce that provides opportunity for fraud is beneficial.

redeeman 3y ago

because they somehow have this idea that they own the rights to control others. Once you consider that you can force others to do anything, regardless of reason, you can begin to rationalize anything, and it will be "for the greater good" or "for their own good". They probably even sincerely mean it too. some kind of bald man once quoted someone: "With the first link, a chain is forged..."

ceejayoz 3y ago
> because they somehow have this idea that they own the rights to control others The flip side, of course, being the folks who believe they somehow have no responsibility for how they use their rights to impact others. Society can only function with at least some balance between these two extremes. Some of us need a little bit of chain.
- redeeman 3y ago
  you cannot perform crimes on others, thats about it. If someone comes to my house dying of cold, they have no right to demand I help them. I would be an asshole if I dont, and I think people SHOULD help, but you have no right to demand I do (and again, not saying I wouldnt, just that nobody gets to be entitled to it)
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    Unfortunately, we encounter far more complex scenarios, from "can the car dealership dump engine oil into the creek behind their maintenance bay?" to "we sold a product that provably killed thousands of people, but none in a way that can cause us direct individual liability". Societally, we've largely decided we're all better off without a pile of frozen bodies at our door.
aidenn0 3y ago
> Once you consider that you can force others to do anything, regardless of reason, you can begin to rationalize anything, and it will be "for the greater good" or "for their own good". They probably even sincerely mean it too. Eh, I know lots of people who are neither anarchists nor totalitarians, so I'm not sure this is true.
- redeeman 3y ago
  i said you CAN begin to rationalize... I didnt say most would do it about everything, but as is clearly evidenced here, many would about a great many things. "Red cars are more involved in traffic accidents, I therefore think you must be a murderous lunatic if you get a red car, and we cant have that, so lets forbid it"

czl 3y ago

> Yes, it's counterintuitive to many people that "the optimal amount of $BAD_THING is non-zero" for a rather large set of possible values for BAD_THING. How much "earth is sterilized" risk is reasonable per year?

mlyle 3y ago

Well, the optimal quantity for many things is actually zero. It's the edge cases-- the things where it's really hard to get rid of and we get some useful benefit from the related activity-- where it's nonzero. Of course, those edge cases are our biggest world problems-- for example, pollution, because pollution abatement is hard and the industry and commerce that produces pollution is beneficial... or fraud, because fraud protection is hard and the industry and commerce that provides opportunity for fraud is beneficial.