On 5/12/20 10:10 AM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote: > Ha! Well, these analogies do break down. So "precisely the same way" doesn't > really work. For example, I think you'd be hard pressed to say that the costs > associated with obesity are "precisely the same" as the costs associated with > cleaning your smashed body off the road. <grin> of course it is not "precisely" the same (hyperbole).. no thing is precisely the same as any other thing (unless of course there really is only one electron in the universe and it is everywhere at once). Scraping the pixels of the image of my obese body out of people's wedding and vacation photos might seem nearly as distasteful to the happy tourists/wedding attendees as watching someone else scrape my viscera from the pavement (or bridge abutment, or light post)... and to complete the not-precisely-the-same-as analogy, the happy couple trying to remove my photo-bombing self are likely not doing the scraping themselves, but rather paying their photographer or digital lab to do the same while they look away fastidiously (or gaze on morbidly) (rubbernekking?). > I continue to argue for context and it's importance in these issues. The RoI > for seat belts is quite clear. I *think* it's quite clear for mandated > helmets, too. A quick Google scholar search shows the actual science behind > them (contrary to Dave's conclusion).
I don't know the detailed data/science behind helmets. I happen to be on the end of the spectrum that says "I'd rather have a quick and concise death than a long and lingering one" whether it is vehicle accidents or pandemic health threats. I haven't owned a motorcycle in over a decade and have only taken one for a spin a few times in the last few years, always with a helmet (and boots, and long pants, and long-sleeves). If I'm going to have a minor motorcycle accident, I'd rather stumble away from it with all my skin and hopefully my joints and bones and cranium intact. If I were riding hard and fast all the time, maybe modern body-armour/helmetage is good enough (you may own some, or at least be aware of the state of the art) to allow me to dump the bike on a bad turn or to avoid a bad driver and slide, tumble, thump my way down the roadway and not suffer (much) more than a bunch of bruises and a lot of disorientation and maybe some PTSD dreams. If that is the case, I recommend such... there might even be a self-inflating Michelin man suit that emulates the effects of airbags. If there are such things then we should mandate them, maybe even for bicycles and scooters and skate boards, electric-powered or otherwise. But that doesn't mean I want to outlaw others who might want to ride motorcycles, with or without helmets, with or without body armour, with or without the Michelin Man suit. I am much more sympathetic with expecting (demanding of?) people hurtling down the highway at a relative velocity (to my own) of 120MPH or more to wear eye protection so that they are MUCH less likely to catch a bug in the eye and swerve into my lane and do a face-dive through my windshield (with or without a helmet). I'm not sure what the right threshold for these things is, but I do believe they are and should be negotiable within various (sub)cultures... so I (mostly) wear my seatbelt and I don't ride a motorcycle much anymore (because I'm probably more of risk of being a burden to society as a motorcycle accident victim with or without a helmet than ever before). But that doesn't make me feel that I should disallow you from riding yours (with or without a helmet or body armour or yadda yadda). > Regardless, each issue, from the decibels of one's leaf blower to underage > ATV riders, from binary rules (prison) to modest inhibitory policies > (taxation) requires context. To ignore the context and make blanket > generalities like you're doing or blanket laws for/against them is > technically ignorant, in the sense that we're ignoring the details. Yes, we are prone to ignore details and the paradoxes of stacking rules about how other people should behave when the consequences (to others) of such are somewhat secondary or tertiary... and we all have our pet examples of things we think *shouldn't* be (en)forced onto us or we think *should* be (en)forced onto others. > But the main point remains: It's not about the individual. It's about the > collection of individuals, including the plants and bacteria. and Virii? Don't forget the viruses... THEY are just trying to live a normal, robust, virus life... and they DO hole an important role in our larger ecology. With that I might endorse the development and distribution of a vaccine, but antivirals are somewhat questionable morally. And that Ice9 stuff? It has a right to reproduce too... which of course seems to lead us back around to "what means behaviour?" is crystalization as a self-reproduction mode above the threshold? - Steve .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- ... .... . ... FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6 bit.ly/virtualfriam unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/ FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/
