The former increases risk and the latter reduces it. In Economics, risk is outcome variability. It's a cost if you're risk-averse (i.e. generally sane) and a b

The former increases risk and the latter reduces it. In Economics, risk is outcome variability. It's a cost if you're risk-averse (i.e. generally sane) and a benefit if you're risk-loving (i.e. mildly nuts.) To mitigate the problem of vast numbers of people being mildly nuts, governments invented lotteries. The idea is to maximize the thrill/price ratio and steer people away from gambling addiction - at least to the extent that they're a sufficient fix and not a gateway drug. Next up: What makes Russian Roulette wrong but climbing a crane to build a hospital right? At least the crane version is a somewhat-interesting example in that you're increasing one's risk to reduce another's. The linked article is just plain dumb.