[extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure

[spike]

bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Russell Wallace
Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] Psychology of investments in infrastructure

On 6/19/06, spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote:
Ja ...  I am suggesting that
vulnerable stuff like subways are a bad investment with current technology. 

>This is ridiculous. What are you going to do, let fear of terrorism
convince you to start driving to work instead of taking the subway?...

No, not at all.  It would convince me to vote against building of subways
because they are too likely to go bust.  The reason I avoid subways is not
because of terrorism, it is because they are inconvenient.  

> How many people have terrorists killed in the last few years? A handful of
thousands. How many people have road accidents killed in the last few years?
Hundreds of thousands...

Inappropriate comparison.  Far more people drive than ride subways.
Freeways are more difficult to attack than subways.

> Our Cro-Magnon brains are programmed ...etc... Come on, Spike, you know
all this. Extropy-chat is a list for rationalists, and rationality is about
letting our beliefs and actions be dictated by reality.

I am puzzled by some of these reactions.  Imagine the kindergarten
classroom, five-year-olds playing everywhere.  A kid quietly playing with
blocks by herself in the corner, no one paying a bit of attention to her.
She starts to stack the blocks, making an intricate block castle four feet
high.  What soon happens?

My notion is that building expensive vulnerable infrastructure can actually
*cause* terrorism, in which case past history doesn't really help us much.
The most expensive most vulnerable target will be hit first, for it produces
the most bang for the buck.  Examples: the Japanese subway, the World Trade
Center (twice), the Spanish and British rail station attacks.

The next lesson from kindergarten is that having your block tower knocked
down requires no provocation.  The little girl in the corner hurled no
insults.  Canada did nothing to provoke an attack.  Russell, do explain what
is irrational about this line of reasoning.

spike