It’s fascinating to me what a different view of risk we had in the past.
The no damage being caused on the surface was a “new fact”. That would never fly today, for better or for worse.
Aloha · 4h ago
I think one of the problems of modern society is the level of risk people deem acceptable - its now near zero, instead of "reasonable risks".
Aside from that, culturally the value we impart on a single human life has also changed too - death used to be much more common, infant death in particular - its not uncommon to go to an old cemetery and see a single family having buried three or more children, with another 2-3 having survived to adulthood. This was not something limited to the lower classes either, Calvin Coolidge had a son who died of sepsis from a blister while he was president.
ndileas · 2h ago
Are you implying that was, somehow, good? Because it was bad. Most major religions / ethical paradigms agree on this.
People, individually, should take risks if that's what they want, and it's not going to hurt others. I'm totally fine with skydiving, base jumping, rock climbing, whatever. I'm not fine with pumping chemicals into the local water table because that's the way Grandpa do.
kulahan · 1h ago
These types of arguments are always so easy when you present everything as insanely black and white.
A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.
I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.
Aloha · 2h ago
The biggest issue I have, is we allow large organizations to make decisions on difuse/abstract risks - often without owning the liability from those choices, but roll many liabilities up for an individual choice to an organization - its perverse, and should be the other way around.
If I do something that earns me a darwin award at work, my company probably should not be liable for it.
resource_waste · 3h ago
>I think one of the problems of modern society is the level of risk people deem acceptable - its now near zero, instead of "reasonable risks".
I've watched plenty of youtube videos that say something like 'But management needed dem profits so they took the risk'
So... let us not pretend we don't cut corners and take risk. There are plenty of modern deaths and environmental destruction because people take risk.
What I think should be more acceptable, is that people take personal risks. Nothing wrong with accepting risk being the first person in an unregulated prototype space ship or taking unverified medicine.
ls612 · 13m ago
I watch those USCSB videos too and the takeaway I have is that even with these sorts of fuckups there are a single digit or low double digit number of people killed in industrial accidents each year in a country of 350 million. That suggests that we are actually pretty good at chemical safety already.
Aloha · 2h ago
The regulatory and legal strangleholds we have put on modern society allows large organizations to roll the dice with abstract and diffuse risks - often without owning the liability from those choices, but often preclude individuals from taking their own personal risk assessments and deciding to take part or not - because the liability rolls someplace else (aka, you can always sue).
> That an unlimited number of mines may be simultaneously fired by passing electric currents through the platinum wire bridges of detonators.
Was this really the first time anyone really 'went for it' with detonators? Surely there's an upper limit to how many it can set off
Similar approach though I guess? Blow it up / set it on fire and hope for the best
The no damage being caused on the surface was a “new fact”. That would never fly today, for better or for worse.
Aside from that, culturally the value we impart on a single human life has also changed too - death used to be much more common, infant death in particular - its not uncommon to go to an old cemetery and see a single family having buried three or more children, with another 2-3 having survived to adulthood. This was not something limited to the lower classes either, Calvin Coolidge had a son who died of sepsis from a blister while he was president.
People, individually, should take risks if that's what they want, and it's not going to hurt others. I'm totally fine with skydiving, base jumping, rock climbing, whatever. I'm not fine with pumping chemicals into the local water table because that's the way Grandpa do.
A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.
I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.
If I do something that earns me a darwin award at work, my company probably should not be liable for it.
I've watched plenty of youtube videos that say something like 'But management needed dem profits so they took the risk'
So... let us not pretend we don't cut corners and take risk. There are plenty of modern deaths and environmental destruction because people take risk.
What I think should be more acceptable, is that people take personal risks. Nothing wrong with accepting risk being the first person in an unregulated prototype space ship or taking unverified medicine.