Hacker Read

mcguire · 2022-03-08 11:54:42

"Limited effectiveness"

Even a tiny effect on that much of the population is huge.

frosted-flakes | karma 3661 | avg karma 1.65 · | 2020-04-15 14:40:58+00:00

So, rather than maybe help lots of people a tiny bit (hard to see the impact), help a small number of individuals a lot.

slothtrop | karma 1713 | avg karma 0.84 · | 2024-04-17 15:44:52

Diminish is the word. Perfect effectiveness is impossible.

OrgNet | karma 982 | avg karma 0.96 · | 2019-05-13 12:57:52

"Only affects a few" is not a really good argument... just wait until they come for you...

alacombe | karma 34 | avg karma 0.04 · | 2020-11-18 03:11:54+00:00

On an individual level for sure, multiply this by a state / country population, and you get non-negligible impact.

massysett | karma 5090 | avg karma 3.75 · | 2020-04-02 16:51:39+00:00

I am seeing this logic a lot: “this preventive measure isn’t 100 percent perfect, therefore it’s completely useless.”

Even measures that are only partially effective can make a substantial difference, especially at a population level.

reply

zuzun | karma 686 | avg karma 3.88 · | 2016-06-26 11:12:08+00:00

The people it impacts negatively outnumber the people that benefit from it, it's as simple as that.

6gvONxR4sf7o | karma 9787 | avg karma 3.43 · | 2021-09-20 15:23:16

In this case, it seems like it only makes a small practical impact.

kafkaesq | karma 7631 | avg karma 2.93 · | 2017-05-04 20:56:17+00:00

The thing is, you're listing off reasons why it "shouldn't" have a large impact... instead of looking at the data.

CydeWeys | karma 28315 | avg karma 3.91 · | 2020-03-16 12:34:35+00:00

It's pretty much just a tautology (which can't even be false). Of course it's true that only a small minority of people will ever have a major impact on many other people.

andsoitis | karma 15255 | avg karma 3.51 · | 2023-03-28 09:53:11

> The actual impact of those things is pretty small

That’s the definition of NOT changing the world.

reply

HPsquared | karma 7582 | avg karma 2.12 · | 2021-02-02 11:35:46

And that's not even accounting for the beneficial effects on friends/family/society.

occamrazor | karma 1862 | avg karma 2.66 · | 2020-09-15 06:58:19+00:00

There is the”disproportionate impact” argument. It is if course harder to prove, though.

psunavy03 | karma 1802 | avg karma 2.68 · | 2024-06-25 16:35:27

**or decrease the quality of life of vast numbers of people in response for arguably insignificant returns.

emodendroket | karma 21781 | avg karma 1.83 · | 2021-04-14 18:26:40

Well, if it’s widespread, and yet people are not behaving as we would wish, I would conclude it’s not very effective at influencing their behavior.

avgcorrection | karma 4323 | avg karma 1.5 · | 2023-01-08 13:46:49

No. I’m not saying that the impact of one person’s lifestyle is miniscule in this context; I’m saying that it is miniscule in aggregate.

vel0city | karma 6168 | avg karma 1.63 · | 2023-04-30 15:48:38

It's an ineffective one, because there isn't any single category that is even 90% or 80% of the issue. Everything is just a small drop in the bucket, it's just that there are lots of drops.

whoooooo123 | karma 866 | avg karma 3.26 · | 2022-10-23 02:34:05

I said that it can make a huge impact. I'm sure it doesn't always.

jancsika | karma 9361 | avg karma 2.84 · | 2019-08-25 15:27:11+00:00

A thing affects a tiny percentage of the world population. An ethical stance is made.

A thing affects enormous percentage of world population. A shrug is performed.

reply

karmakaze | karma 8189 | avg karma 1.25 · | 2022-01-23 13:34:27

This wasn't meant as a large effect to a small number of people, rather a small effect widely distributed to raise consciousness of self-assessed quality.