Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

It's probably better to act a bit too much than a too little. Human lives are at risk.


sort by: page size:

"We prefer to exercise an abundance of caution when hundreds or thousands of lives are at stake" is a short, easy, and accurate explanation.

A disturbing thought: if we were sensible about the risks, and refused to be unreasonably afraid, we might see greater loss of life, as the terrorists would have to kill more people to make us afraid.

Due to false allegations it's dangerous even when you do nothing, so logically it's more dangerous when you do anything.

I fully agree with this.

To stay alive, act like everyone is out to kill you.

Unfortunately it doesn't help us move towards a safer world by addressing any of the root causes, but it does keep more of us (poeple who use the road) alive.


And putting other people at risk

This is talking about the personal danger, not the total societal impact.

But when people's health and safety are immediately threatened I find it difficult to argue that people who are able to shouldn't avoid the threats.

To protect someone, we must endanger everyone.

Your recklessness is judged by the extra harm risked.

You can't just waive it away because other risk is more dangerous across the entire nation. Under that standard: One little murder is a rounding error compared to the 2.5 mil who die each year.


Human beings will ultimately act like human beings in these situations. It's very easy to expect something else when you're not the human being under threat.

The only way to prevent human beings from acting in the default way human beings act is rigorous evidence-based training. No proposition that there must have been something else they could have done is meaningful unless it's backed up by specific, rigorous, evidence-based training for the situation in question.

Absent that, we're asking people to respond to threats unrealistically. We're making them sick and commanding them to be well.


This is dangerous advice for actually protecting people.

There's one thing more human than that, and that is to react with fear and anger when someone senselessly endangers their lives.

I think that danger is highly overblown.

Not when human lives are at risk.

As one great man said: you need to have the capacity for danger, but you need to learn how to not use it except when it's necessary.

It’s unfortunate that they are not only putting themselves in danger, but also the lives of people all around them.

I think the best strategy for us civilians to be safe is to act dead just like when you see a wild bear.

When human lives are threatened.

I think it boils down to two questions:

- What is the average level of risk to someone taking reasonable personal precautions?

- What level of state-sponsored violence is justifiable to further reduce that risk?

Governments and societies have been acting out-of-control and it needs to stop.

If people don't want to take personal precautions, they should be at liberty to assume the additional risk.

next

Legal | privacy