5 ms·

this is such a wild take to me... it's impossible to quantity at what point something becomes a net negative for society. Smoking seems to be an obvious example

this is such a wild take to me... it's impossible to quantity at what point something becomes a net negative for society. Smoking seems to be an obvious example, because it's addictive quality inhibits a fair decision to the smoker, and it's something with a lifelong pathology. But trampolines and mountain biking are both activities that result in ephemeral injuries. There is the rare case where a particular injury might become chronic, but how is that a drain on society, and not primarily the individual? by your logic, should we also ban (or require insurance?) for football (hand egg), boxing, martial arts, (Tai chi?), cars, religion, guns, knives, prescription medicine, children, leaving your house at all? edit; I'm happy to steal more ideas from sibling comments! I already stole football, but now I want to add obesity, and all mental health conditions. I'm really curious about the context the idea of net negative comes from, but I probably should also take a stab at a conclusion; why contrast individual actions and decisions in the context of society at all? The decision to do anything should stop at 1st order, and maybe 2nd order effects. That is to say, when trying to improve society, it's fair to look down into smoking and say, we should spend attention on fixing this. But it's incorrect to look at an individual decision "should I smoke" and weight it's effects on society. (How will this effect my family, or my environment is 2nd order, and should be accounted for)

layer8 2y ago
I agree that a ban doesn’t make sense, but even “ephemeral” injuries routinely generate significant costs. (In my experience, musculoskeletal injuries are rarely completely ephemeral, they tend to have long-term effects, even if minor.)
- grayhatter 2y ago
  I'm gonna call that sample bias. If you exclude all injuries that are ephemeral, (because they don't get reported, because they're ephemeral, and forgotten), you're left with the injuries that aren't ephemeral. I mean duh, obviously lol. But my point is still, yes injuries are bad, and as a society, we're pretty trash at healing them, but injuries are more impactful for the individual, than for society. And bonus point; if we're talking about sociatial responsabilities, given injuries are unavoidable, shouldn't we be trying to fix our responses to them rather than trying to limit people from enjoying life? Mountain biking in fun, so are trampolines. Strictly speaking, the world where we've solved injuries (think any sci-fi pantopia) is better than the world where we didn't because we just outlawed getting injured.
  - layer8 2y ago
    My point is, most injuries aren’t ephemeral in the sense that your body would end up as if you didn’t have the injury in the first place. In particular the sports injuries we are talking about. You may only truly realize that a decade later or so. So I find making that distinction questionable, it trivializes the injuries. As I said, I agree that bans don’t make sense. But the costs are real, and therefore one should take care to avoid injuries instead of trivializing them.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
bluGill 2y ago
Don't forget about the alternatives. Is mountain biking worse than watching movies - biking will of course have more injuries, but it also builds physical fitness and so long term is probably better for you. (or maybe just my anti-movie bias is showing?)
avn2109 2y ago
Controversial take: On a population level, the negatives of smoking are at least partially mitigated by the "smoking suppresses obesity" side effect. Obesity is such a huge (pun not intended) public health issue in modern American society that any intervention reducing it is actually quite valuable. It's at least arguable and perhaps even true that we as a society would be better off if everybody used tobacco at 1950's rates and therefore got skinnier, especially if we all just dipped Zyns or similar smokeless "low harm" nicotine formats instead of smoking. That said, I personally use 0 tobacco/nicotine etc.
- aerostable_slug 2y ago
  Smoking is significantly worse for you and your family than obesity. It causes a greater reduction in life expectancy, and can impact the physical health of those who live or work with you via secondhand smoke. It is simply wild how many ways nicotine can find to kill humans. All kinds of stuff stems from the lowly cigarette. Obesity impacts many more people (that is to say, we have more fat people than smokers/tobacco users), but it's far from as significant a health risk. I'm not sure we know enough to quantify vapes and chew vs. obesity.
  - cma 2y ago
    Nicotine itself isn't very dangerous, it's the carcinogens in tobacco that are and the combustion products in the smoke.
TylerE 2y ago
Yes, we should absolutely ban, at the very least, contact football among minors. We have ample evidence of football (and soccer, too, for that matter) student athletes developing full blown CTE by their 20s, and with lifetime risk thousands of times the general population.
- ghaff 2y ago
  A few years back, I thought there would be more of a push to regulate/limit American, at least contact, football. But didn't happen. Soccer? Good luck.
  - alistairSH 2y ago
    100% anecdotal… one of my town’s youth football (American) clubs shut down before COVID due to lack of interest. When my son played ~15 years ago, the club was fielding 2 teams per age group. And knowing what they know now, I wouldn’t let a child play today.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      I do suspect that soccer has whittled down youth American football over time. It's not quite true that no one played youth soccer when I was growing up but certainly nothing organized at scale to today's degree. I have a friend who has been reffing soccer forever. I should ask him as he probably has some insight. ADDED: I suspect a combination of the negative publicity for football, less equipment for soccer, etc. Even if American football still largely dominates as you get to college and the pros. Some rugby in college but relatively not a lot in the US.
Dylan16807 2y ago
> now I want to add obesity, and all mental health conditions If you have a way to just not have those, the way you can just not use trampolines, I would love to hear it.
crazygringo 2y ago
> but how is that a drain on society, and not primarily the individual? There are two factors. The first is that a drain on individuals is a drain on society. That's why we outlaw risky behavior like lethal recreactional drugs, driving without seatbelts, driving without a driver's license, etc. We try to protect people from themselves in some of the worst aspects that we can. Second, of course, is health care costs. Activities that constantly result in injury wind up raising the health care costs for everyone, since that's how insurance works. > by your logic, should we also ban (or require insurance?)... You already have to have car insurance, yes. And yes lots of kinds of guns are banned in lots of places. We draw the lines in different places. It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lemming 2y ago
  We draw the lines in different places. e.g. amateur MMA is illegal in Norway and I think a couple of other places too.
- guitarlimeo 2y ago
  > It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need. Isn't this already in use in multiple countries? I.e. if you want to play football (european) in a league, you have to have a license and also insurance that covers playing it in an organized way - for example in a league. So team sports are already covered by such things, but individual sports like mountain biking or skiing aren't at the moment.
- 2y ago

layer8 2y ago

I agree that a ban doesn’t make sense, but even “ephemeral” injuries routinely generate significant costs. (In my experience, musculoskeletal injuries are rarely completely ephemeral, they tend to have long-term effects, even if minor.)

grayhatter 2y ago
I'm gonna call that sample bias. If you exclude all injuries that are ephemeral, (because they don't get reported, because they're ephemeral, and forgotten), you're left with the injuries that aren't ephemeral. I mean duh, obviously lol. But my point is still, yes injuries are bad, and as a society, we're pretty trash at healing them, but injuries are more impactful for the individual, than for society. And bonus point; if we're talking about sociatial responsabilities, given injuries are unavoidable, shouldn't we be trying to fix our responses to them rather than trying to limit people from enjoying life? Mountain biking in fun, so are trampolines. Strictly speaking, the world where we've solved injuries (think any sci-fi pantopia) is better than the world where we didn't because we just outlawed getting injured.
- layer8 2y ago
  My point is, most injuries aren’t ephemeral in the sense that your body would end up as if you didn’t have the injury in the first place. In particular the sports injuries we are talking about. You may only truly realize that a decade later or so. So I find making that distinction questionable, it trivializes the injuries. As I said, I agree that bans don’t make sense. But the costs are real, and therefore one should take care to avoid injuries instead of trivializing them.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

bluGill 2y ago

Don't forget about the alternatives. Is mountain biking worse than watching movies - biking will of course have more injuries, but it also builds physical fitness and so long term is probably better for you. (or maybe just my anti-movie bias is showing?)

avn2109 2y ago

Controversial take: On a population level, the negatives of smoking are at least partially mitigated by the "smoking suppresses obesity" side effect. Obesity is such a huge (pun not intended) public health issue in modern American society that any intervention reducing it is actually quite valuable. It's at least arguable and perhaps even true that we as a society would be better off if everybody used tobacco at 1950's rates and therefore got skinnier, especially if we all just dipped Zyns or similar smokeless "low harm" nicotine formats instead of smoking. That said, I personally use 0 tobacco/nicotine etc.

aerostable_slug 2y ago
Smoking is significantly worse for you and your family than obesity. It causes a greater reduction in life expectancy, and can impact the physical health of those who live or work with you via secondhand smoke. It is simply wild how many ways nicotine can find to kill humans. All kinds of stuff stems from the lowly cigarette. Obesity impacts many more people (that is to say, we have more fat people than smokers/tobacco users), but it's far from as significant a health risk. I'm not sure we know enough to quantify vapes and chew vs. obesity.
- cma 2y ago
  Nicotine itself isn't very dangerous, it's the carcinogens in tobacco that are and the combustion products in the smoke.

TylerE 2y ago

Yes, we should absolutely ban, at the very least, contact football among minors. We have ample evidence of football (and soccer, too, for that matter) student athletes developing full blown CTE by their 20s, and with lifetime risk thousands of times the general population.

ghaff 2y ago
A few years back, I thought there would be more of a push to regulate/limit American, at least contact, football. But didn't happen. Soccer? Good luck.
- alistairSH 2y ago
  100% anecdotal… one of my town’s youth football (American) clubs shut down before COVID due to lack of interest. When my son played ~15 years ago, the club was fielding 2 teams per age group. And knowing what they know now, I wouldn’t let a child play today.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    I do suspect that soccer has whittled down youth American football over time. It's not quite true that no one played youth soccer when I was growing up but certainly nothing organized at scale to today's degree. I have a friend who has been reffing soccer forever. I should ask him as he probably has some insight. ADDED: I suspect a combination of the negative publicity for football, less equipment for soccer, etc. Even if American football still largely dominates as you get to college and the pros. Some rugby in college but relatively not a lot in the US.

Dylan16807 2y ago

> now I want to add obesity, and all mental health conditions If you have a way to just not have those, the way you can just not use trampolines, I would love to hear it.

crazygringo 2y ago

> but how is that a drain on society, and not primarily the individual? There are two factors. The first is that a drain on individuals is a drain on society. That's why we outlaw risky behavior like lethal recreactional drugs, driving without seatbelts, driving without a driver's license, etc. We try to protect people from themselves in some of the worst aspects that we can. Second, of course, is health care costs. Activities that constantly result in injury wind up raising the health care costs for everyone, since that's how insurance works. > by your logic, should we also ban (or require insurance?)... You already have to have car insurance, yes. And yes lots of kinds of guns are banned in lots of places. We draw the lines in different places. It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
lemming 2y ago
We draw the lines in different places. e.g. amateur MMA is illegal in Norway and I think a couple of other places too.
guitarlimeo 2y ago
> It is a pretty interesting thought experiment to wonder whether people shouldn't be allowed to engage in organized sports that are risky, without paying an additional health insurance premium? E.g. if you play professional football, then your league has to pay extra money into the health insurance fund to compensate for all the extra health care treatment their players need and will need. Isn't this already in use in multiple countries? I.e. if you want to play football (european) in a league, you have to have a license and also insurance that covers playing it in an organized way - for example in a league. So team sports are already covered by such things, but individual sports like mountain biking or skiing aren't at the moment.
2y ago