3 ms·

> But at the end of the day, the vast majority of people just don't seek to actively harm others. Everything humans do relies on that assumption, and always has

> But at the end of the day, the vast majority of people just don't seek to actively harm others. Everything humans do relies on that assumption, and always has. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias ? > It's symptomatic of the insane Silicon Valley vision that the world can and should be managed and controlled at every level of detail. Which is a "cure" that would be much worse than any disease it could possibly prevent. What "cure" would you recommend?

p-e-w 3y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias Indeed, that "bias" is a vital mechanism that enables societies to function. Good luck getting people to live together if they look at passerbys thinking "there is a 0.34% chance that guy is a serial killer". > What "cure" would you recommend? Accepting that not every problem can, or needs to be, solved. Today's science/tech culture suffers from an almost cartoonish god complex seeking to manage humanity into a glorious data-driven future. That isn't going to happen, and we're better off for it. People will still die in the future, and they will still commit crimes. Tomorrow, I might be the victim, as I already have been in the past. But that doesn't mean I want the insane hyper-control that some of our so-called luminaries are pushing us towards to become reality.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
darby_eight 3y ago
[dead]
pmarreck 3y ago
You need to accept that everything has a tradeoff and some amount of drama just seems to be built into the system. Take sex work, for example. Legalizing it leads to an overall increase in sex trafficking. But it also does this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-... My personal opinion is that if something is going to find a way to conduct itself in secret anyway (at high risk and cost) if it is banned, it is always better to just suck it up and permit it and regulate it in the open instead. Trafficked people are far easier to discover in an open market than a black one. Effects of anything (both positive and negative) are far easier to assess when the thing being assessed is legal. Should we ban cash because it incentivizes mugging and pickpocketing and theft? (I've been the victim of pickpocketing. The most valuable thing they took was an irreplaceable military ID I carried (I was long since inactive)... Not the $25 in cash in my wallet at the time.) I mean, there would literally be far fewer muggings if no one carried cash. Is it thus the cash's "fault"?
- consumer451 3y ago
  But there have to be specific trade-offs, in each case. I am reminded of the words of "a wise man." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39874049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39874049 Captain's Log: This entire branch of comments responding to OP is not helping advance humanity in any significant way. I would appreciate my statement of protest being noted by the alien archeologists who find these bits in the wreckage of my species.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    I think drunk driving being an oil that keeps society lubricated cannot and should not be understated. Yes, drunk driving kills people and that's unacceptable. On the other hand, people going out to eat and drink with family, friends, and co-workers after work helps keep society functioning, and the police respect this reality because they don't arrest clearly-drunk patrons coming out of restaurants to drive back home.
    - brailsafe 3y ago
      What is more depressing is how we can acknowledge that reality and continue to do absolutely nothing to mitigate it but punish it, in many cases. The more people practically need to drive, the more people will drunk drive and kill people, yet in so many cases we just sort of stop there and be like "welp, guess that's just nature" instead of building viable alternatives. However the other theoretical possibly is that if people didn't need to drive, they might end up drinking more.
    - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
      This is such a deeply American take that I can't help but laugh out loud. It's like going to a developing nation and saying that, while emissions from two stroke scooters kills people there's no alternative to get your life things done.
      - pierat 3y ago
        You can laugh out loud all you want, but there are mandatory parking minimums for bars across the USA. Yes, bars have parking lots, and a lot of spaces. The intent is to *drive* there, drink and maybe eat, and leave in some various state of drunkenness. Why else would the spacious parking lots be required?

p-e-w 3y ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normalcy_bias Indeed, that "bias" is a vital mechanism that enables societies to function. Good luck getting people to live together if they look at passerbys thinking "there is a 0.34% chance that guy is a serial killer". > What "cure" would you recommend? Accepting that not every problem can, or needs to be, solved. Today's science/tech culture suffers from an almost cartoonish god complex seeking to manage humanity into a glorious data-driven future. That isn't going to happen, and we're better off for it. People will still die in the future, and they will still commit crimes. Tomorrow, I might be the victim, as I already have been in the past. But that doesn't mean I want the insane hyper-control that some of our so-called luminaries are pushing us towards to become reality.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

darby_eight 3y ago

[dead]

pmarreck 3y ago

You need to accept that everything has a tradeoff and some amount of drama just seems to be built into the system. Take sex work, for example. Legalizing it leads to an overall increase in sex trafficking. But it also does this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-... My personal opinion is that if something is going to find a way to conduct itself in secret anyway (at high risk and cost) if it is banned, it is always better to just suck it up and permit it and regulate it in the open instead. Trafficked people are far easier to discover in an open market than a black one. Effects of anything (both positive and negative) are far easier to assess when the thing being assessed is legal. Should we ban cash because it incentivizes mugging and pickpocketing and theft? (I've been the victim of pickpocketing. The most valuable thing they took was an irreplaceable military ID I carried (I was long since inactive)... Not the $25 in cash in my wallet at the time.) I mean, there would literally be far fewer muggings if no one carried cash. Is it thus the cash's "fault"?

consumer451 3y ago
But there have to be specific trade-offs, in each case. I am reminded of the words of "a wise man." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39874049 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39874049 Captain's Log: This entire branch of comments responding to OP is not helping advance humanity in any significant way. I would appreciate my statement of protest being noted by the alien archeologists who find these bits in the wreckage of my species.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  I think drunk driving being an oil that keeps society lubricated cannot and should not be understated. Yes, drunk driving kills people and that's unacceptable. On the other hand, people going out to eat and drink with family, friends, and co-workers after work helps keep society functioning, and the police respect this reality because they don't arrest clearly-drunk patrons coming out of restaurants to drive back home.
  - brailsafe 3y ago
    What is more depressing is how we can acknowledge that reality and continue to do absolutely nothing to mitigate it but punish it, in many cases. The more people practically need to drive, the more people will drunk drive and kill people, yet in so many cases we just sort of stop there and be like "welp, guess that's just nature" instead of building viable alternatives. However the other theoretical possibly is that if people didn't need to drive, they might end up drinking more.
  - Karrot_Kream 3y ago
    This is such a deeply American take that I can't help but laugh out loud. It's like going to a developing nation and saying that, while emissions from two stroke scooters kills people there's no alternative to get your life things done.
    - pierat 3y ago
      You can laugh out loud all you want, but there are mandatory parking minimums for bars across the USA. Yes, bars have parking lots, and a lot of spaces. The intent is to *drive* there, drink and maybe eat, and leave in some various state of drunkenness. Why else would the spacious parking lots be required?