3 ms·
Or perhaps, lives being so long, there wouldn’t be any perceived difference between dying at a hundred and a thousand years old. Today, a twenty-something dyin
by ElFitz 2y ago
Or perhaps, lives being so long, there wouldn’t be any perceived difference between dying at a hundred and a thousand years old.
Today, a twenty-something dying in a car crash after drinking alcohol is as stupid and preventable as deaths gets. And we known that people drive more safely later in their lives. And yet, we let twenty-somethings get a driving license and drive a car around.
- keiferski 2y agoI don’t think you could discount the Foucault power dynamics either. The people running society would all be hundreds of years old, so it would have an effect on culture. I don’t agree that preventing twenty somethings from dying in drunk crashes is easy or preventable at all. You’d need to redo the entire transportation and city planning infrastructure of almost the entire United States to do that.
- ElFitz 2y agoIt’s not a US specific problem. Young drunks also ride electric mopeds in European capitals, usually renting them through apps. Sometimes without even a driving license. So while public transports might be a part of the issue, I doubt they are the root cause. But that wasn’t my point. My point was that, although it is stupidly dangerous, since they statistically have significantly more accidents than older drivers, young people are still allowed to get a driving license and drive. Even though they are those that stand the most to lose in terms of life expectancy.