4 ms·

The problem I think is that if you take the two extremes/limits - e.g. the "do as little as possible until we absolutely have to" and the "do everything that co

The problem I think is that if you take the two extremes/limits - e.g. the "do as little as possible until we absolutely have to" and the "do everything that could feasibly make sense" sides, in the absence of an existential event, the former outcompetes the latter both in the short and long term because if you regulate _everything_ then you end up in absurd situations that kill progress. What we really need is a time machine. With the benefit of a time machine we could implement a bunch of safety mechanisms, many of which would be inconvenient and retard progress, and then go back in time and tell people which ones made sense and which ones didn't make sense.

do_not_redeem 2y ago
I think time machines would be used to opposite effect if they existed. If something bad happens, you just rewind a few minutes and say "hey Jim, be careful on that ladder, eh?"
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  There are at least two timelines, one where Jim falls off the ladder and one where he doesn't. The time machine would not change that.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    Depending on what you mean by "at least", the warning could still be a very effective safety mechanism, or we might realize there's no point in trying to be safe at all, or something else entirely. I think the implications need to be nailed down before a convincing argument can be made.
wat10000 2y ago
You don’t need a time machine. Smart people are pretty good at figuring out the costs and benefits. What you need is to cultivate an environment where safety is a priority, but it’s recognized that it also has a cost and tradeoffs, and there’s a sweet spot that isn’t “maximum safety at all costs.” The American FAA is a pretty good example. They’ve made air travel extremely safe while also allowing it to become very cheap. Their safety record has become essentially perfect but that doesn’t come from preferring safety at all costs. They put a dollar figure on each life to determine if a safety requirement is actually worth the cost. And they recognize when unintended consequences result in a worse overall outcome. For example, child safety seats are not required on airliners despite clear evidence that they would save lives in the event of a crash. Why? Because the expense and inconvenience would push some parents to drive to their destination instead of fly. Driving is much more dangerous. They ran the numbers and found that requiring child safety seats would cost lives on net. The FAA is far from perfect and they seem to have been slipping in recent years. But they’re a good example of how this can be done. The hard part is getting people to allow it to be done. A lot of people will insist on spending a billion dollars to save one life. Or insist on focusing on one particular area and saving lives there, ignoring a loss of life caused elsewhere. This can be resisted but it takes a lot of work.
- naming_the_user 2y ago
  I agree with this but I think that the FAA comes with pretty heavy caveats which limit the wider applicability of the model. An airliner is something that is essentially impossible for a garage crew to produce, even less so if they want to be FAA accredited, but that doesn't really matter because, well, it's basically impractical for someone to build a jet anyway. Most industries aren't like this and if you had an equivalent of the FAA for say, hand car washes, either they would basically do nothing at all, or it would be so onerous that suddenly the only people that can open car washes would be megacorps. That might mean we still have widespread inexpensive car washes, but it would come at the cost of tilting the economy towards big business and away from small owner operators which is a net negative IME.
  - nradov 2y ago
    Ironically there are really severe restrictions on car washes in some US states now due to water use limits and the environmental impact of runoff. It's really tough for a small operator to open a new car wash in California. https://www.vlses.com/2024/03/06/navigating-californias-wastewater-regulations-for-car-wash-businesses/ https://www.vlses.com/2024/03/06/navigating-californias-wast... The regulatory overreach has driven up prices so much that a lot of my neighbors have gone back to washing their own cars in their driveways.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    You definitely need to account for enforcement, not just pretend your rules will magically be obeyed, when making your decisions. But I don’t see why the situation would be so dire that you can only choose between a free-for-all and destroying all small business. Licensing and inspections go a long way, and there are plenty of industries like that which haven’t been taken over by a few megacorps. Consider air pollution from cars, for example. It starts with the manufacturers who are required to meet certain standards. But individual owners can and do modify their cars to break the rules. Despite this, air pollution from cars has been dramatically reduced with a combination of regulating manufacturers and regulating individual car owners with emissions testing.

do_not_redeem 2y ago

I think time machines would be used to opposite effect if they existed. If something bad happens, you just rewind a few minutes and say "hey Jim, be careful on that ladder, eh?"

SoftTalker 2y ago
There are at least two timelines, one where Jim falls off the ladder and one where he doesn't. The time machine would not change that.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  Depending on what you mean by "at least", the warning could still be a very effective safety mechanism, or we might realize there's no point in trying to be safe at all, or something else entirely. I think the implications need to be nailed down before a convincing argument can be made.

wat10000 2y ago

You don’t need a time machine. Smart people are pretty good at figuring out the costs and benefits. What you need is to cultivate an environment where safety is a priority, but it’s recognized that it also has a cost and tradeoffs, and there’s a sweet spot that isn’t “maximum safety at all costs.” The American FAA is a pretty good example. They’ve made air travel extremely safe while also allowing it to become very cheap. Their safety record has become essentially perfect but that doesn’t come from preferring safety at all costs. They put a dollar figure on each life to determine if a safety requirement is actually worth the cost. And they recognize when unintended consequences result in a worse overall outcome. For example, child safety seats are not required on airliners despite clear evidence that they would save lives in the event of a crash. Why? Because the expense and inconvenience would push some parents to drive to their destination instead of fly. Driving is much more dangerous. They ran the numbers and found that requiring child safety seats would cost lives on net. The FAA is far from perfect and they seem to have been slipping in recent years. But they’re a good example of how this can be done. The hard part is getting people to allow it to be done. A lot of people will insist on spending a billion dollars to save one life. Or insist on focusing on one particular area and saving lives there, ignoring a loss of life caused elsewhere. This can be resisted but it takes a lot of work.

naming_the_user 2y ago
I agree with this but I think that the FAA comes with pretty heavy caveats which limit the wider applicability of the model. An airliner is something that is essentially impossible for a garage crew to produce, even less so if they want to be FAA accredited, but that doesn't really matter because, well, it's basically impractical for someone to build a jet anyway. Most industries aren't like this and if you had an equivalent of the FAA for say, hand car washes, either they would basically do nothing at all, or it would be so onerous that suddenly the only people that can open car washes would be megacorps. That might mean we still have widespread inexpensive car washes, but it would come at the cost of tilting the economy towards big business and away from small owner operators which is a net negative IME.
- nradov 2y ago
  Ironically there are really severe restrictions on car washes in some US states now due to water use limits and the environmental impact of runoff. It's really tough for a small operator to open a new car wash in California. https://www.vlses.com/2024/03/06/navigating-californias-wastewater-regulations-for-car-wash-businesses/ https://www.vlses.com/2024/03/06/navigating-californias-wast... The regulatory overreach has driven up prices so much that a lot of my neighbors have gone back to washing their own cars in their driveways.
- wat10000 2y ago
  You definitely need to account for enforcement, not just pretend your rules will magically be obeyed, when making your decisions. But I don’t see why the situation would be so dire that you can only choose between a free-for-all and destroying all small business. Licensing and inspections go a long way, and there are plenty of industries like that which haven’t been taken over by a few megacorps. Consider air pollution from cars, for example. It starts with the manufacturers who are required to meet certain standards. But individual owners can and do modify their cars to break the rules. Despite this, air pollution from cars has been dramatically reduced with a combination of regulating manufacturers and regulating individual car owners with emissions testing.