4 ms·
An interesting article about human behavior. How nice. However, I don't see a categorical disproof in there of the idea that saving lives is something worth spe
by fusiongyro 14y ago
An interesting article about human behavior. How nice. However, I don't see a categorical disproof in there of the idea that saving lives is something worth spending time and money on, so could you take a minute and connect the dots for us plebs? Thanks.
- scott_s 14y agoI assume zmj's point is that we implicitly make this trade-off all the time. For example, cars could be safer, but then they would be more expensive. Anytime we opt for a cheaper car with less safety features, we are making a cost-benefit analysis involving our own lives and the lives of the people who will travel in our car. (Who are probably the most important people to us.) There becomes a point where the actual gains in life-saving potential is negligible, and we don't think it is worth the cost. But we rarely state it that way.
- monkeypizza 14y agoWe could easily make cars way, way safer - put a giant, sharp spike sticking out of the center of the steering wheel, pointed at the driver's heart, and forbid seatbelts. Nobody would ever go over 5mph, or put themselves at risk of crashing into anything.
- jcampbell1 14y agoYou have completely botched this example. This example is useful to explain why airbags increase collisions. Putting a spear in cars would not make cars safer.
- thalecress 14y agoI don't understand your objection. Do you see a meaningful distinction between "cars are safer" and "cars are driven more safely"?
- SatvikBeri 14y agoThere is a major difference. The number of traffic accidents did not change significantly from 1990 to 2009, but the number of deaths from traffic accidents dropped 23%[1]. This is most likely due to cars being built in a way so that their passengers are more likely to survive accidents. [1]: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.pdf http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.p...
- dmansen 14y agoThis is one of the better comments I've seen lately - perfect execution of the "take the parent post's example to an absurd, irrelevant extreme and say Q.E.D."-style comment that seems to be all the rage around here lately. Love it, A+!
- AngryParsley 14y agoFrom http://squid314.livejournal.com/260949.html http://squid314.livejournal.com/260949.html: Contrary to popular belief, you can put a dollar value on human life. That dollar value is $5.8 million. Denying this leads to terrible consequences. Let me explain. I'm guessing these 404 pages aren't at all cost-effective. The chances of saving a life are incredibly low, and the cost of implementing and maintaining them is pretty high. Also, there's value lost to users. They'll see a missing child instead of helpful navigation suggestions. These things sound inconsequential compared to a human life, but they add up extremely quickly. Our minds can't intuitively do the math.
- greggman 14y agoA common example of trying too hard to save lives is the unintended consequences. Example: making airplanes more safe -> flights cost more -> more people opt to drive -> more people are killed in car accidents than saved by safer airplanes Whether that fits here or not I'm not sure.
- darkarmani 14y agoWhy don't we make the speed limit 5 MPH and save a large number of the 45k deaths a year in the US? We could save thousands of lives, but it won't happen.
- fusiongyro 14y agoSo, in your mind, a nearly zero cost repurposing of the 404 page is equivalent to reducing the speed limit by 75-95%? Not saying it's a good idea to apply this, but the detractors are blowing the cost way out of proportion.