Live data from Hacker News

Our Newfound Fear of Risk

schneier.com

141–150 of 195 posts

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#141
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but if you want to do something about global warming it'd be a lot smarter to keep the nuclear power stations running and take coal plants offline instead. Nuclear power has a spotty safety record overall, and the consequences of a mistake can be acutely disastrous, but coal is likewise a chronic disaster.

> Nuclear power has a spotty safety record overall This is so incredibly false it's on par with stating "commercial aviation has a spotty safety record overall".

I disagree. There have been lots of low-level safety violations, and it's easy to find examples of chronic mismanagement. By 'spotty' I mean lots of small flaws, a few big ones here and there. Certainly, it has a good low ratio of deaths per megawatt of power generated, but such metrics are not the whole story.

I'm very pro-nuclear, but don't think there's an mileage in blowing off safety concerns.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#142
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your last sentence. For most of what you list, nobody is forcing American parents to do this, they just choose to. Nothing stops you from letting your own children do things on their own.

There are numerous laws that enforce the no risk world on parents. These are things I did as a kid that are now illegal: Rode in the back of a pick up truck Rode a bike without a helmet Sat in the front seat of a car before I was 8 years old. Swam in a pool that didn't have a fence around it Set off fireworks in the street in front of our house on July 4th Walked to and home from school alone (not illegal, but agains…

Almost none of those are good ideas. Walking alone is an exception; it's very easy for one momentary lapse to cause death or permanent damage in any of the others.

One of mother's best friends died riding in the back of a pickup truck; car accidents are common, but all that happened in her case was that the road had a pothole, she fell, and happened to hit her head too hard and in the wrong spot.

My girlfriend in college fell on her bike while she was going down a hill and passed over some gravel. Her helmet was destroyed. All she needed was stiches, but if she hadn't been wearing a helmet, she probably would have gotten a concussion.

These are just anecdotes, but the point is that taking a small cost (riding safely in cars; wearing helmets on bikes) is far worth it, because the cost is small, and the benefit in the unlikely case is huge.

It's not illegal where I live to not wear seatbelts in the backseat of a car, but I do anyway. I also use condoms when I have sex, and I wash my hands after going to the bathroom.

There's a big difference between systematically overestimating small risks, and blithely allowing black swans to shit all over your life. I hope you never allow your child to do most of those things, and I hope you never do most of them yourself. The world isn't as scary as the TSA wants us to think, but it can still ruin your life in a heartbeat.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#143
post #8
post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting question is to turn this point on its head. The conventional wisdom (before 9/11) was it was "too risky" to fight back against hostage takers on an airplane. That bit of social engineering led to a huge force multiplier when trained pilots turned civivian aircraft into cruise missles. So, the origins of 9/11 have to do with mis-understanding the real risks we face. The opposite of ignorance is educati…

"That bit of social engineering led to a huge force multiplier" Its possible to use this technique to predict the next set of attacks: 1) High levels of security theater mean long entrance lines in front of (perceived) high value targets. Therefore instead of attacking the high value target the security theater is protecting, the line of people waiting to enter gets attacked. I get nervous waiting in lines knowing an…

The problem with both of those plans is that they involve attacking humans, in crowded places where heavily armed forces will rapidly respond and probably kill you as an attacker.

Terrorism now is focused more on systems disruption. Buy a $300 bomb, go to any one of bazillions of miles of pipeline, blow it up, cost the USG/Shell Corporation millions. Buy a cheaper bomb, go to any power substation, blow it up, cost the economy however much it loses and as a bonus, cost the government a bit of legitimacy as its denied the opportunity to provide services to its citizens.

If you truly are that confident, I'll put some money on the table at good odds (for me, since you're almost certain of winning). But if you're not truly 100% confident and can still be convinced, I recommend reading Brave New War, by John Robb. It's a fantastic overview of the tactics, strategies, and organization of modern (post Iraq occupation) terrorists. It comes very highly reviewed from higher-ups in the MEND insurgency.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#144
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'm a fan of this TED Talk: 5 Dangerous Things to Let Your Kids Do He explains some ways to help kids learn to be safe around dangerous things. http://www.ted.com/talks/gever_tulley_on_5_dangerous_things_...

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#145

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…

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).

This is best viewed as an engineering problem; those are much easier to solve than social problems.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Solar panels mean a dependence on China

If you're referring to rare-earth production, my understanding is that this is more a matter of where mining operations are considered viable and acceptable (largely on a basis of environmental impacts). The elements themselves are relatively abundant in the Earth's crust, they're simply not concentrated as other minerals have traditionally been (though we've done a rather good job of ensuring that concentrated ores no longer exist).

Materials dependence is also different from fuels dependence. In the latter case, short-term interruptions can have massive disruption effects on whole economies. Look at what possible military action in Syria is doing to current oil prices, let alone the disruptions of the 1974 and 1979 oil embargoes. Were material flows interrupted, what would be disrupted would be additional energy systems development, but existing systems would continue to function fine (modulo maintenance and retirement).

the endlessness of renewables may be technically true, but often not at all in practice.

There's a fair bit of truth to that. Many renewables technologies are dependent on specific and limited materials, or on complex technology stacks: PVs also require an extensive chip-fabrication infrastructure. Once it's established and producing it's pretty efficient, but having to build it from scratch would be a challenge.

You're touching on issues that many who are looking at future paths (generally: "collapse", "transition", or some combination / variant of these and other options) with cold, clear vision see.

My point is that whatever challenges renewables offer, they're out only hope, so if it turns out that they do have profound limitations, we'd best start getting used to that idea. If this means going back to animal power and firewood -- well, we have a rough idea of what sort of population can be supported on that technological stack. And I don't paint renewables as necessarily being sufficient for present-day (or even technologically advanced) lifestyles, though I suspect they might be able to offer that.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#147
post #80

I think it's become a cultural thing, unfortunately. I've spent the last few years seeing the world, and the difference in attitudes between the people of many other countries and Americans at home is striking. We've become a fear-based culture. I have an anecdote from a month or two ago. My girlfriend--she's German--and I were in Boston's central park, where there's a wading pool for children. The place was extremel…

Which leads to a culture where everyone is afraid of touching kids that are not their own. It's really sad.

I wear a shirt that says "Free Hugs", and I've had many adults take advantage of it. The other day, a kid asked me and I got all weird and "can't"... I don't wear that shirt anymore.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#149
post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are numerous laws that enforce the no risk world on parents. These are things I did as a kid that are now illegal: Rode in the back of a pick up truck Rode a bike without a helmet Sat in the front seat of a car before I was 8 years old. Swam in a pool that didn't have a fence around it Set off fireworks in the street in front of our house on July 4th Walked to and home from school alone (not illegal, but agains…

Almost none of those are good ideas. Walking alone is an exception; it's very easy for one momentary lapse to cause death or permanent damage in any of the others. One of mother's best friends died riding in the back of a pickup truck; car accidents are common, but all that happened in her case was that the road had a pothole, she fell, and happened to hit her head too hard and in the wrong spot. My girlfriend in col…

Almost none of those are good ideas.

You're right; riding in the back of a pickup truck is not a good idea. It's either a great idea and lots of fun for short distances on low-traffic roads at low speeds, or the only way to get work done because getting into and out of the cab takes too long.

it's very easy for one momentary lapse to cause death or permanent damage in any of the others.

As it is when swimming, hiking, driving, swallowing food, shaving, etc. Everything that's worth doing carries risk.

One of mother's best friends died riding in the back of a pickup truck; car accidents are common, but all that happened in her case was that the road had a pothole, she fell, and happened to hit her head too hard and in the wrong spot.

Just so I'm clear, I'm sorry to hear that. But that doesn't mean that nobody should ever do anything fun, ever, just that they should be mindful of the risks and take appropriate, measured, noninvasive precautions.

Re: Our Newfound Fear of Risk

#150
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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

There's more ways to harness solar energy than photovoltaics.

Post reply on HN