Is it? A annoying point often brought up here was that the colorado senator wayne allard had voted against stiffening arsenic regulations in drinking water, but there were epidemiological studies that said the new standard would cost billions and only prevent an average of 21 cases of stomach cancer per year. is this a fair trade-off? the kyoto protocol would crush economies worldwide and yet even the proponents say if fully implemented would only shave a degree off of their predicted warming curve. is that smart policy? making policy on the back of hysteria, classic or dud?
― keith (keithmcl), Saturday, 9 November 2002 04:35 (twenty-three years ago)
1 degree median global temperature = no need for sweaters ever again
― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Saturday, 9 November 2002 08:21 (twenty-three years ago)
It depends on how many would loose/die for it. No? Oh never mind, my brain is recovering from some massive cold.
― nathalie (nathalie), Saturday, 9 November 2002 08:44 (twenty-three years ago)
As I understand it Kyoto is meant as a starting point and statement of intent anyway, a way of saying "we're serious about global warming so please do start properly investing in alternative energy sources and R&D of same" and laying the groundwork for future treaties which couldn't practically be implemented yet because they actually
would "crush economies".
― Tom (Groke), Saturday, 9 November 2002 10:38 (twenty-three years ago)
i thought this was about self-sacrifice for the sake of the salvation/happiness of others (like, in a christian sense or something). i suppose in a more specific sense it is, but i don't know about the trade-offs involved in this question enough to say.
― Maria (Maria), Saturday, 9 November 2002 14:35 (twenty-three years ago)
We all put prices on human life - spending more on health services, if sensibly directed, would save life. Limiting cars to ten miles an hour would cut road deaths. We make those decisions, and then we often lose all perspective when it is disease, or when the accidents are more spectacular.
For instance, when there was the Hatton train crash, if I've got the right one, there were vast numbers of train cancellations and a huge slowdown on rail for months, while further testing was done. I don't have the figures handy, but this predictably led to loads more road traffic - which led to far more extra accidental deaths than the worst estimates imagined they were preventing.
One of my 'colleagues' at UCL (i.e. we have never met), John Adams, is a major league expert on risk. He regularly gets employed by the Navy, Army and so on, and explains to them why they should change things so that they have more accidents, because they have lost a sense of proportion between risk and avoidance.
― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Saturday, 9 November 2002 20:52 (twenty-three years ago)
This is exactly why economists and risk analysts wind up looking like pricks -- most recently in the case of that study that claims smoking is actually great, because smokers are more likely to die before they start soaking up pensions and social security and long-term health care.
I think the "saves one person" line more often gets used when the thing that needs to be done just requires, well, a bit of effort or attention on someone's part, not actual wide-spread policy reconfiguration.
― nabisco (nabisco), Sunday, 10 November 2002 00:41 (twenty-three years ago)