[ExI] The Avalanche Threat
stathisp at gmail.com
Fri Sep 14 08:32:01 UTC 2007
On 14/09/2007, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/14/07, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > OK, but that just means you think avalanches are less dangerous than
> > terrorists. The problem is that even when it can be shown that a
> > non-malicious threat is more dangerous than a malicious threat, people
> > are more likely to respond to the malicious threat with concern and
> > allocation of resources. I can see how this way of thinking might have
> > evolved, but it doesn't make it rational.
> It is rational, because if ignored, these 'minor' threats make life
> not worth living.
> In the UK there is a 'minor' problem of gangs of feral youth running
> out of control in the streets. Sure, at the younger ages it is mostly
> 'minor' trouble. Graffiti, throwing stones, malicious vandalism, cars
> damaged and broken in to or set on fire, fighting, swearing, under-age
> drinking, shop-lifting, burglary. But these gangs of kids make some
> housing estates hell to live in. Shops have metal shutters for
> protection. Cars have to be put in strong garages overnight. Visitors
> are afraid to enter the estate. And so on.
> The police show little interest until someone is knifed, or a girl is
> raped. i.e. When the usual day-in day-out violence goes a bit further
> than usual, and a 'serious' problem occurs.
I'm not suggesting that crime, in general, is a minor problem. What I
am suggesting is that if your expected losses from theft this year are
the same as your expected losses from flooding, your insurance premium
for each eventuality should be the same and you should be as willing
to insure for one as for the other, or spend as much effort preventing
one as the other if they are each equally preventable.
More information about the extropy-chat