Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our Newfound Fear of Risk

schneier.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 195 posts

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#131

Post by munin »

svachalek wrote: post #116
enjo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That proves nothing other than your dad grew up in a particular way. The question the post you were replying to posed was: is this actually a new phenomenon? Or is it simply good ole day syndrome? I suspect it's more the latter.

It's not just his dad. Watch Lassie or Leave it to Beaver or Andy Griffith and take notes on what was considered good wholesome parenting at the time. When I grew up in the 70s I'd say if anything the typical parent was even more hands-off. It was absolutely nothing like what is considered proper now.

they generally wouldn't show the beatings on broadcast television...

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#132

Post by enraged_camel »

aasarava wrote: post #55
newobj wrote: post #11

Related: at the PARK this weekend, and heard all the following utterances in the span of ten minutes from some parents: "NO RUNNING!" "IT'S DANGEROUS HERE" "YOU'RE GONNA GET HURT" "NO RUNNING!" Talk about instilling fear and creating risk aversion. Sometimes you just have to let a child find out for themselves what's safe and what isn't. What you can get up and dust yourself off from and what you can't. It's hard to…

As a parent of young kids, I can attest that many parents in my peer group are constantly reminding their kids not to be careful NOT due to a fear of risk -- but rather from wanting to avoid an injury that's going inconvenience everyone. If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a da…

>>If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a damaged bike wheel, and potentially another child who is now screaming because you have to leave the park to go find bandages.

Well, yes. This is called parenting: it is expected that, as a parent, you will have to endure a certain amount of inconvenience so that your kid can learn to ride a bike. Now, if he or she is endangering other kids while learning, then it's valid to step in. But thinking about your own convenience sounds a bit selfish.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#133

Post by dredmorbius »

sliverstorm wrote: post #121
pzuraq wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a ridiculous comparison, The fact of the matter is that those decisions are completely logical. Whether or not global warming is happening, we will run out of fossil fuels and fissionable material eventually. Solar is renewable, self sustaining. By building out solar Germany is reducing there dependence on foreign countries and securing there future; Possibly helping to reduce global warming is just icing on t…

Solar is renewable, self sustaining The sun is, but what about the raw materials needed to make the panels?

Solar panels do have some low-reserve raw-materials requirements. CSP (concentrated solar thermal power) rather less so, though it has higher costs and isn't as easily deployed widely (PV can be installed pretty much on any existing structure, CSP generally requires its own dedication installations).

Though really, all this says is that even under a renewables scheme, we're not going to be able to provide power at the level some have come to expect for the population we've now got (7 billion) or are projected to have (10 billion).

The bigger problem from my PoV is that the existing financial and economic systems discount the sustainability capabilities of even a partial capacity provided by renewables to the point that little if any of it gets built -- the biggest hazard I and some others (Gail Tverberg is a pretty notable leading voice, Richard Heinberg another) see is that the financial and economic systems collapse well before energy or other limits fully impose themselves.

And yes, others note that renewables as presently envisioned draw heavily on nonrenewables for fabrication and construction:

https://www.readability.com/articles/oqtyksza

http://www.countercurrents.org/adair301110.htm

The fact that providing energy needs under a renewables basis is going to be really hard doesn't make nonrenewables any better -- they're only going to work until they don't and we fall off a cliff.

What's your suggestion.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#134

Post by mietek »

anigbrowl wrote: post #77
alan_cx wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1984, the US funded IRA bombed the entire UK government, nearly killed them all. The UK did not invade Northern Ireland or Ireland. The police investigated, made arrests and people were convicted. Acting humanely is not that hard.

It did not 'nearly kill them all.' It killed five people, none of whom where in the cabinet although they were senior party members. The UK didn't have to invade Northern Ireland because Northern Ireland was (and is) UK territory and there was already a substantial active military presence. For about 25 years the British army sent fresh soldiers off to do a tour in NI to toughen them up. In short, you have no idea wh…

> It did not 'nearly kill them all.' It killed five people, none of whom where in the cabinet although they were senior party members.

The article you quote says 5 were killed and 31 were injured...

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#135

Post by ISL »

JshWright wrote: post #102

I'm currently sitting in JFK. I found this article interesting (as I do most of Schneier's writing) and almost read parts of it aloud to my wife who is sitting across from me. It then occurred to me that discussing rational responses to terrorism while sitting in an airport would likely be ill-advised...

It's probably the ideal forum.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#136

Post by sliverstorm »

dredmorbius wrote: post #133
sliverstorm wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solar is renewable, self sustaining The sun is, but what about the raw materials needed to make the panels?

Solar panels do have some low-reserve raw-materials requirements. CSP (concentrated solar thermal power) rather less so, though it has higher costs and isn't as easily deployed widely (PV can be installed pretty much on any existing structure, CSP generally requires its own dedication installations). Though really, all this says is that even under a renewables scheme, we're not going to be able to provide power at th…

The fact that providing energy needs under a renewables basis is going to be really hard doesn't make nonrenewables any better -- they're only going to work until they don't and we fall off a cliff.

What's your suggestion.

My suggestion is to pick our energy sources carefully. Solar panels mean a dependence on China, which is hardly a departure from our current foreign dependence. Maybe there is no energy source that doesn't put us completely at the mercy of another nation, but who knows if that's the case? No one, because renewables are marketed as inherently endless. I'm not a civil engineer, so I don't know all the details and I can't tell you what the best system is. I defer to the actual experts on that. But I can tell you that the endlessness of renewables may be technically true, but often not at all in practice. That's all I'm getting at.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#137

Post by daemin »

graeme wrote: post #78
alayne wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have talked to older people. I'm sure the 1930s were really when kids were raised right and learned the value of a dollar! And in the 1910s kids contributed to society by doing agricultural work. And in the 1890s... I would absolutely not prefer to be living in the 1950s than in the 2010s. Society has improved in many ways in the U.S., particularly if you are not a white male, even if perhaps children aren't allowe…

That's a straw man. No one said we should return to 1950. The point was that, on the specific issue of attitudes towards risk, we should be more like we were in 1950.

Like being afraid of Nuclear Armageddon?

But I get your point, the whole helicopter and intensive parenting should go. Though I do think it's caused somewhat by the excessive need to make children excel in a successively difficult and competitive society.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#138

Post by ixacto »

This new trend of a kinderocracy is troubling to say the least. If we are not able to accurately assess risk, how will society at large manage social norms and not turn into a police state?

One of the main things that parents fail to realize is that most of the child abusers are actually not pedos in the park with slr cameras. "about 60% of perpetrators are non-relative acquaintances, such as a friend of the family, babysitter, or neighbor. About 30% of those who sexually abuse children are relatives of the child, such as fathers, uncles, or cousins. Strangers are perpetrators in only about 10% of child sexual abuse cases." -VA.gov http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/child_sexual_abuse...

My guess why society at large has actively been ignoring the reality of child is abuse is that we as humans and families obviously want to be able to "do something" to protect their children. Saying that non-relative acquaintances are the most likely to be abusers is not going to go over well, but hell I could be wrong.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#139

Post by code4life »

newobj wrote: post #11

Related: at the PARK this weekend, and heard all the following utterances in the span of ten minutes from some parents: "NO RUNNING!" "IT'S DANGEROUS HERE" "YOU'RE GONNA GET HURT" "NO RUNNING!" Talk about instilling fear and creating risk aversion. Sometimes you just have to let a child find out for themselves what's safe and what isn't. What you can get up and dust yourself off from and what you can't. It's hard to…

I joke constantly with my wife "Don't! You're going to break your arm!"

hilarious - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XBb-YYszLI

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#140

Post by tedks »

enraged_camel wrote: post #132
aasarava wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a parent of young kids, I can attest that many parents in my peer group are constantly reminding their kids not to be careful NOT due to a fear of risk -- but rather from wanting to avoid an injury that's going inconvenience everyone. If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a da…

>>If your child crashes his bike and gets a bloody knee on the playground, your relaxing afternoon at the park is most likely over and now you have a crying child, bloody clothes, a damaged bike wheel, and potentially another child who is now screaming because you have to leave the park to go find bandages. Well, yes. This is called parenting: it is expected that, as a parent, you will have to endure a certain amount…

If the only way humans could learn was through directly physical stimuli, we'd be scratching dirt and running down antelope still.
Post reply on HN