this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2023
245 points (95.9% liked)
Europe
8484 readers
1 users here now
News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐ช๐บ
(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐ฉ๐ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures
Rules
(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)
- Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
- No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
- No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.
Also check out !yurop@lemm.ee
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know the guy but to be fair there is always a risk tradeoff. We also accept it to be OK if people die in car accidents. The alternative would be to forbid traveling by car.
You seem to be suggesting that because some level of risk is inevitable, any level of risk is acceptable. There's a big difference between minimal practical risk and reckless levels of risk, but your construction doesn't capture that with its crude binary of "risk or no driving". We could drive with far less risk, eg enforcing speed limits with technology
To be charitable, I think they're saying that risk discussions require, well, discussion.
No I didn't say that (at least didn't mean to, am not a native speaker). What I tried to say was that there are always options to reduce the risks even more but we still don't do them because it would make other aspects of life harder. Currently a lot of people (by design) have the mental and physical fitness to get a driver's license. We could theoretically up the requirements a lot (think pilots). It would lead to way less cars, less car accidents, more experienced drivers, probably even more car pooling, etc. But it would be at the cost of flexibility for a lot of people and thus we don't implement that and accept the risk. We could also set stricter speed limits. Think about just halfing all existing speed limits. Of course the streets would be safer but it's again a tradeoff and we don't do that because people like to drive fast and accept the risk. Currently most things come down to the fact that we try to reduce risk while keeping the inconvenience cost low but there are limits to this approach - which is fine if everybody understands that this basically means that we accept the risks.
Back to the original topic, the same is true for a pandemic. Of course there are less deaths with lockdowns - but at what cost? Is it worth it that we lock everybody up to reduce the risk?
We do our best to limit damage under the assumption that nearly everyone should be allowed a licence and a car, that's not the same. A small share of drivers are responsible for the majority of fatalities, and while some of these drivers are obscure until they kill someone, many have offenses, lose their licences but are allowed back on the roads because we see the right to drive a car as sacred
That's not the only assumption. We could pass laws that would forbid driving faster that 50km/h. It would be a lot safer. But people value (up to a point) their time more than their lifes - which is fine as long as we understand that that's what's happening.
It depends what you mean by "our best". We try to reduce the risk without sacrificing too much. Wearing a seatbelt is trivial, because there are basically no downsides. We could also half all the speed limits - that would reduce the risk a ton. But we don't do that because people like to drive fast because they (up too a risk balance) value their time more than their life (sounds rough but that's basically what it is).
It's the same with pandemics. Of course a lockdown prevents a lot of deaths, but at what cost? Is it worth it. We wouldn't half all the speed limits to reduce risk?
I'm not against lockdowns in general, for example during the first covid wave because it bought us valuable time to figure out how we proceed, but a lockdown is (figuratively and literally) high cost.
We design roadways and construct expensive intersections for the exact purpose of pedestrian safety
appealing to existing harms being done in the world to justify more harms is not really a compelling argument. we have done a lot to mitigate the risk of car travel, and there are plenty of people who see the damage cars do to people and our environment and advocate for better transit solutions that are less likely to harm people. the reality is they could have done more, saved lives, by limiting the spread of the disease more than they did. they didn't, and their failure to act responsibly can and should be criticized.
Absolutely. But most humans aren't rational being and consider such statements unacceptable.
We definitely have ways to spend more money ok healthcare or charities, with obvious positive consequences. However we're far from spending every last penny on it. This is because it isn't our top priority.