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.
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.
The biggest thing we have done is managed to protect the general public, which IMO is what should be done.
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.
If I do something that earns me a darwin award at work, my company probably should not be liable for it.
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.
I mean we can do that right now and we don’t.
However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.
So it’s all about balance.
A rear backup camera module, its wiring, and the screen cost less than $15 at volume for minimally-viable options and $100-300 for "good" (HD, guidance lines, proximity sensors, etc.) options.
Not $1,000-2,000.
What manufacturers charge for them is a different matter.
And the harm reduction wouldn't be 0.001%, it would be practically 99%.
And it costs much less than $100k.
It's found in race cars, today, and you can install it today (in most cars).
I literally have no idea what device you think I’m talking about
They exist today and can be added to passenger vehicles for much less than $100k.
Broadly, the only fatalities they wouldn't prevent are offset frontal crashes at speeds so great as to be unreasonable and vehicles that have driven off cliffs or into bodies of water (though many would be able to self-extricate).
These are all dumb devices, I'm sure you were thinking of an AI or self driving doohickey.
We've already gotten results from your thought experiment. The results are: "an arbitrary point where cost/convenience lines cross over, based on general consensus but mainly liability costs".
If $10k (what I spent to get my Miata track-ready) isn't the line, $100k ain't it either-- especially since my solution saves tens of thousands annually and yours, like, less than one (45k deaths * 0.001% = 0.45 lives saved annually).
An illustrating example might also be the US cities like Seattle that have their "vision zero" programs. A "vision", and related actions, to get to zero traffic related deaths or serious injuries every year. It's the official position of these city governments that literally any non-zero death rate is unacceptable. No matter how low the death rate is (and it's already very low). They officially accept zero risk. Is that reasonable? Is it even about the death rate or something else? Either way, it's fully undebatable.
Part of this is driven by the social media discourse and polarization - We essentially had a whole bunch of ideas which were outside of the window of normal discourse that have now been adopted as ideology and dogma by their respective camps. Once an idea is dogma/key ideological tenant it's really hard to challenge it.
Vision Zero should be viewed for what it is.. as a dumb idea.
As I understand it 'vision zero' type programs are often an aspirational goal, and they implicitly recognize the near impossibility of reaching the goal, but that near impossibility doesn't make the goal undesirable or not worth striving for.
If you set such a goal you start to analyze the systems involved which cause accidents and deaths in a different way and you seek change them on a fundamental level to significantly reduce if not outright eliminate the possibility of certain categories of accidents entirely.
So instead of doing moderately effective but ultimately fleeting stuff like cracking down on speeders and drunk drivers through police action you redesign the infrastructure so that it becomes much harder for a car to physically strike pedestrians through traffic calming[0] measures, creating physically separate pedestrian and bike infrastructure so that cars just don't come in contact with people, or implement mass transit so that you simple decrease the number of drivers on the road and again physically separate them from automobiles to eliminate the possibility that they're involved in car accidents.
In doing so you not only reduce the number of accidents that injure and maim people but you induce them to be more physically active and therefore healthier so that they're able to better car accidents, slips and falls, and illnesses which ends up paying for the infrastructure improvements over the long run.
This is so much better than the alternative where speeders consistently speed and kill pedestrians in an unmarked cross walk so we decide to play whack-a-mole by increasing the police budget for photo radar for a while until the public forgets that this particular street is dangerous to cross on foot.
Similar approach though I guess? Blow it up / set it on fire and hope for the best
> 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
MontagFTB•8mo ago