2 ms·

How can the aggregate add up to us caring when each individual piece does not care at all? Is your point that we care in principle but don't functionally care

How can the aggregate add up to us caring when each individual piece does not care at all? Is your point that we care in principle but don't functionally care when faced with an actual decision?

mrguyorama 3y ago
>Is your point that we care in principle but don't functionally care when faced with an actual decision? Yes this is basically why the only thing capitalism can do is lower prices through squeezing everything, because while large groups of people are principled and care a lot, individual humans are largely irrational (especially when it comes to risk, because the humans who accurately analyzed risk on a population scale were eaten by tigers) and fairly flexible in morals, ideology, and priorities.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> How can the aggregate add up to us caring when each individual piece does not care at at all It can’t. Where is can is where individuals care a little but don’t want to explicitly bear the cost if it if distributed only across those willing to pay for it. Most people agree cars should have seatbelts. Were seatbelts optional, and only those willing and able to pay for it could have them, far fewer people would pay for it. Which, in turn, increases the cost to each of them individually.
- _heimdall 3y ago
  That gets to a really odd fact of people (as in the collective "we"). Why would we think cars should have seatbelts if we would rarely see the value enough to pay for or use them? I personally want seatbelts in case someone hits me and causes an accident. I don't actually think they should be required though, especially if many people would choose not to use them if given the option.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Why would we think cars should have seatbelts if we would rarely see the value enough to pay for or use them? If everyone pays, the fixed costs are amortised across everyone. (Also, it’s hidden in the purchase price.) That lowers the aggregate barrier to entry. Think: toll roads versus roads paid for with taxes.
    - _heimdall 3y ago
      We may be getting off on a tangent here, but seat belt prices aren't really amortized. They are a hidden cost since we aren't told the price, and they are cheaper than if they were an option but that's mainly due to manufacturing efficiencies. Requiring seatbelts would never make them cheaper than having no seatbelts. Lowering the barrier to entry is only really a benefit to those who would opt in anyway, it forces those who wouldn't want it to pay the cost of that. In the original topic, my main point was that if consumers are made aware of the current safety issues Boeing has had and ultimately don't factor that in at all when flying then we really should be done here. The FAA doesn't need to do anything to protect the public if the public has shown that it just doesn't care, and people/media should stop talking about it as though its a controversy when consumers are just as willing to fly Boeing as they are Airbus.

How can the aggregate add up to us caring when each individual piece does not care at all? Is your point that we care in principle but don't functionally care when faced with an actual decision?

mrguyorama 3y ago

>Is your point that we care in principle but don't functionally care when faced with an actual decision? Yes this is basically why the only thing capitalism can do is lower prices through squeezing everything, because while large groups of people are principled and care a lot, individual humans are largely irrational (especially when it comes to risk, because the humans who accurately analyzed risk on a population scale were eaten by tigers) and fairly flexible in morals, ideology, and priorities.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago

> How can the aggregate add up to us caring when each individual piece does not care at at all It can’t. Where is can is where individuals care a little but don’t want to explicitly bear the cost if it if distributed only across those willing to pay for it. Most people agree cars should have seatbelts. Were seatbelts optional, and only those willing and able to pay for it could have them, far fewer people would pay for it. Which, in turn, increases the cost to each of them individually.

_heimdall 3y ago
That gets to a really odd fact of people (as in the collective "we"). Why would we think cars should have seatbelts if we would rarely see the value enough to pay for or use them? I personally want seatbelts in case someone hits me and causes an accident. I don't actually think they should be required though, especially if many people would choose not to use them if given the option.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > Why would we think cars should have seatbelts if we would rarely see the value enough to pay for or use them? If everyone pays, the fixed costs are amortised across everyone. (Also, it’s hidden in the purchase price.) That lowers the aggregate barrier to entry. Think: toll roads versus roads paid for with taxes.
  - _heimdall 3y ago
    We may be getting off on a tangent here, but seat belt prices aren't really amortized. They are a hidden cost since we aren't told the price, and they are cheaper than if they were an option but that's mainly due to manufacturing efficiencies. Requiring seatbelts would never make them cheaper than having no seatbelts. Lowering the barrier to entry is only really a benefit to those who would opt in anyway, it forces those who wouldn't want it to pay the cost of that. In the original topic, my main point was that if consumers are made aware of the current safety issues Boeing has had and ultimately don't factor that in at all when flying then we really should be done here. The FAA doesn't need to do anything to protect the public if the public has shown that it just doesn't care, and people/media should stop talking about it as though its a controversy when consumers are just as willing to fly Boeing as they are Airbus.