3 ms·
You open your argument with the implicit statement that we can consciously (thus should) control and minimise risk (to the point where black swans are eliminate
by flipbrad 18y ago
You open your argument with the implicit statement that we can consciously (thus should) control and minimise risk (to the point where black swans are eliminated) - and that it would be desirable to do so. but using your swan argument, to minimise that risk the explorers would have to have know about the risk - how could they? - and then decided that in light of it, it wasn't worth going to australia.
now, i have no particular affinity for australia nor its brash and smelly inhabitants, but frankly, i don't see either of those positions as logically tenable!
- swombat 18y agoI don't think australians are that brash...
- froo 18y agoWell, to explore unexplored areas involves risk of some form, it is just the magnitude of that risk that is unknown. So then to simply avoid unexplored areas and as such, minimising risk, therefore it could have been possible to never see a black swan. Now, on a more personal note as an Australian. Black Swans are primarily and originally were native to the Western side of the country in the southern areas, but are also found on the Eastern coast of Oz as a result of human interference. When Australia was "discovered" and originally settled, that was done on the Eastern coast of Australia (hence why the east coast of Australia has about 80% of the total population of the country) and only through risk of magnitude unknown would it have been possible to discover the black swans. So no, you're assertion is wrong sir. Thank you for insulting a country you know sweet FA about.