Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress • Hacker News Board

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#151

Post by offendingsry » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:14 PM UTC

nonrandomstring wrote: post #11

> The GAR2022 blames these disasters on a broken perception of risk based on “optimism, underestimation and invincibility,” which leads to policy, finance and development decisions that exacerbate existing vulnerabilities and put people in danger. The most fatal expression I have heard is that "We need to push through". In Digital Vegan I describe this mentality thus: "I feel there is more hope that one can survive a…

> 'Surely I am an idiot, but I remain an optimist that human beings can pull ourselves out of a great collective delusion '

OT: But may i ask if you (reminding me on a fictive guy named "Baron von Münchhausen") do you mean 'optimistic' in terms of: 'You not only have to consume the advertising, feel invited to make our next ads better, write cheering feedback, get in touch with our company ! (without any surplus for you, sorry!)' Than...than ...yes than, i am sure -you became an "'I did it'-people" ?.... P-:

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#152

Post by I_DRINK_KOOLAID » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:15 PM UTC

fallingfrog wrote: post #146

I_DRINK_KOOLAID wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

We don't have "safe spaces in colleges". I graduated from college recently and never witnessed any such thing. How long has it been since you've set foot on a college campus? This is a fabrication by fox news to promote contempt for young people, who are dealing with real problems like sky high costs of education, health care, and housing, and who don't deserve this kind of disrespect. Young people are survivors. The…

> We don't have "safe spaces in colleges". I graduated from college recently and never witnessed any such thing. How long has it been since you've set foot on a college campus?

Just the fact that there are no brawls, no animosity or electricity in the air means that the whole campus is a safe space. Ever since the stone age putting a bunch of young people together in an enclosed space meant huge social volatility and an energetic exchange of ideas. That just doesn't happen anymore.

> who are dealing with real problems like sky high costs of education, health care, and housing, and who don't deserve this kind of disrespect. Young people are survivors.

A median GenZ will live well into their 90s...honestly that's a huge problem, human brains are made to think about tomorrow, next week at maximum, because they developed during a time when you could die at a moment's notice. When you stop thinking about tomorrow and you project yourself 10 or 20 or even 50 years into the future, that's when crazy things start happening such as you saying that young people are survivors.

There is so much abundance, more than ever, that people don't even value it.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#153

Post by [deleted] » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:17 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #126

748 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand your distrust towards "Big Corporations" aimed at maximizing profit.. But I wouldn't trust individuals with many things govmnts regulate. We may be talking in different contexts, but as it was mentioned above, almost all aspects need a governing body that has the overview of the general state of things in order to properly "reduce damage". Same thing with speed limits - some people claim there should be…

> And if we have to chose between two evils - the govmnts and "individuals" - it is reasonable to chose the least evil, which is the govmnt. Although that may appear to be the choice it isn't in reality. If you believe that government is a real thing the answer is always more government. However, the reality is that you are an individual. Government is an idea we can believe, a means whereby the individual can preten…

[deleted]

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#154

Post by pfkurtz » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:18 PM UTC

MrMan wrote: post #44

axiomsEnd wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do we want to fight global warming, if we have rather big industries and local incentives pushing in favor of fossil fuels..?

I dont think these libertarians care about global warming just getting Ruch using their short lives

The opinions on this thread...

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#155

Post by juve1996 » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:20 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #35

blueflow wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> let local people decide for themselves what they want to do - use leaded petrol - build fridges using HCFCs - burn trash This stuff had to be forbidden by the government to make it stop. The UN might be some corrupt stuff, but the point of reducing government at all is nonsense. People on their own won't stop doing harmful things if they dont suffer the consequences themself.

So if let's say, Myanmar doesn't stop using CFCs. What's your solution? Send in some Blue Helmets to enforce global law? And what if they start shooting back? You want to send your son or daughter there? And not to mention the politics of rich countries sending soldiers into poor countries to enforce rules. Colonialism 2.0. "It's the developed world's obligations to drag the uncivilized nations into the the 21st cent…

I would posit another opinion. Say the ozone opened up above your country. Crops are dying in mass. Heat has increased exponentially. It's unsafe for children to be outside.

You're god damn right I'd go to war.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#156

Post by fallingfrog » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

I_DRINK_KOOLAID wrote: post #152

fallingfrog wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't have "safe spaces in colleges". I graduated from college recently and never witnessed any such thing. How long has it been since you've set foot on a college campus? This is a fabrication by fox news to promote contempt for young people, who are dealing with real problems like sky high costs of education, health care, and housing, and who don't deserve this kind of disrespect. Young people are survivors. The…

> We don't have "safe spaces in colleges". I graduated from college recently and never witnessed any such thing. How long has it been since you've set foot on a college campus? Just the fact that there are no brawls, no animosity or electricity in the air means that the whole campus is a safe space. Ever since the stone age putting a bunch of young people together in an enclosed space meant huge social volatility and…

"Just the fact that there are no brawls, no animosity or electricity in the air..."

This is deranged. You want students to be starting fistfights on campus? That's what counts as dialogue to you?

The rest of what you wrote is essentially word salad, and not cogent enough to warrant a response.

I'm directly telling you right now that you have no idea what you're talking about, and you are in total ignorance. Think of it this way: you are someone who read about something in a biased newspaper, and I am someone who saw it firsthand and I know, for sure, that you're wrong, and I'm telling you so, as a fact, not an opinion.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#157

Post by White_Wolf » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:21 PM UTC

logicchains wrote: post #135

White_Wolf wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'd have to implement a coeficient based on the average time needed to aquire said skill for a person with average IQ and EQ, performance, number of base skills required to learn said skill, so on. This formula would be a bit more complex than this but you get the jist of it. It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases.

>It wouldn't be impossible to quantify it for all but edge cases. It would be impossible to quantify it because there's no objective measure of value. The current system allows value to be quantified by people's revealed preferences: the jobs people are willing to pay more for get paid higher. If there's no market for labor then there's no revealed preferences and it's impossible to know which jobs are creating more…

Value is relative term. Even so it can be quantified by using "demand" of a final service/product. That can be used to increase the value of the hour for a certain vertical.

Even the same thing can be valued differently, depending on the location, circumstances, etc.

Tbh I'm not an economics specialist to account for all variables but I can't see how it would be any different from fiat in terms of complexity.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#158

Post by lapcat » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:26 PM UTC

verisimi wrote: post #3

Coming from the UN, we already know what the answer will be. More governance, more/better management of risk by the UN that is then delegated to its administrative regions (the US, EU, etc). This is because as long as we are talking about risk, this plays into the hands of a global governance structure. All risks should be planned for and managed - I mean the covid response was fantastic, right? What was wrong was no…

> I want less government in every way - let local people decide for themselves what they want to do.

Have you considered that local people might decide to form tribes, arm themselves with weapons, kill a bunch of people, and impose their own new government by force?

This is what often, perhaps inevitably, happens when there's a power vacuum.

The United Nations was formed in the aftermath of World War II, during which local people decided what they wanted to do was invade other countries and commit mass murder.

"If government just gets out of the way, then everyone will play together nicely and peacefully" is never how it works.

The key is to maintain a healthy balance between government and personal freedom. It's a difficult balance to maintain, but the alternatives — authoritarianism or anarchy — are always worse.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#159

Post by s-lambert » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

Joeboy wrote: post #106

raspberry1337 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I stopped respecting the UN when they said they criticized Elon Musk for not giving them 6 billion dollars so that they could "solve world hunger". That's about as much as the state of Sweden donates to poverty every single year, and that is just Sweden alone. The total amount of charity donations worldwide is in the trillions of dollars yet there's always just more required. Bureaucrats with humanities degrees at th…

> "solve world hunger" I think the idea WFP promised to "solve world hunger" for $6bn originated with Musk or his fans, not with WFP. WFP's original claim was that they'd be able to prevent 42 million people from starving (a much more achievable goal). I'm struggling to find the original interview rather than dramatized reports of it, though. Disclosure: I've done contract work for WFP.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1454808104256737289

That's the original tweet where Elon Musk first appeared in the conversation, as you can see the article he's replying to is where the misinformation comes in. Basically the WFP said "we can stop 42m starving for a year with $6b, which isn't a lot for someone like Elon Musk" -> CNN Business reports it as solving world hunger in general -> Elon Musk says he'll give them $6b if they openly show how they can solve world hunger. Which they obviously never claimed they could do, so when they eventually replied about how the $6b would be spent it was just ignored because it didn't solve world hunger, just temporary starvation.

Re: Humanity’s broken risk perception is reversing global progress

#160

Post by yjftsjthsd-h » Mon, May 09, 2022, 2:27 PM UTC

lapcat wrote: post #110

blfr wrote: post #57

I think this is completely backwards. We are not risking enough and the progress has stalled as a result. During the 1880-1950 we were causing massive disasters all around, literally nuking cities. But that period is also where we came up with virtually all of technology that makes the modern world: cars, planes, radio, computers, nuclear power, jet propulsion. Since then (also ~70 years) we have maintained a little…

> During the 1880-1950 we were causing massive disasters all around, literally nuking cities. But that period is also where we came up with virtually all of technology that makes the modern world: cars, planes, radio, computers, nuclear power, jet propulsion. What is your concrete suggestion for taking more risks? Surely not nuking more cities? Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to…

I'm not endorsing it, and I would rather that we didn't, but

> Having more world wars? Shall we declare war on Russia and send troops to Ukraine? Would that create more "progress"?

War driving technology forward is a pretty popular idea; it's plausible that if modern society survived WWIII it would create more progress... for the survivors.