= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on Terrorist baby down the well: a look at institutional forces - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (23)
Seems like politicians are willing to invest in prevention if the prevention is fighting against a human enemy, because then it moves from the "prevention" category to the "war" category.
War against terrorism = soldiers go and kill some foreigners. War against drugs = policemen go and kill some dealers, or arrest some users.
War against flood = ???. Not gonna happen.
And probably the "prevention" aspect is completely irrelevant. You can get votes for being tough on drugs or terrorism, even if your policies do not in fact reduce drug usage or terrorism. The war itself is the product you sell; prevention is just an excuse.
If people would believe that Flood Fairy exists and causes flood, you could get some points as a politician for assembling a special team of super fighters to kill the Flood Fairy. That would be exciting. Other ways of preventing floods are boring.
The average voter does not care about rationality, only about killing.
You've identified where the distinction lies, but missed the reason why there is a distinction.
It is entirely appropriate to take different actions against an agent vs. a force of nature. One can't deter nature, and nature shows no intent. Agency matters. The most dangerous threats to humans are other humans.
(Except for aging, about which people are particularly crazy, but that's a special case.)
It's not just that. A lot of our ethical injunctions need to be suspected during wartime, thus it makes sense to be suspicious of attempts to make use of this loophole by expanding the definition of "war".
In what sense? Other humans are certainly not very high on the list of top causes of death.
They are somewhat high on the list of top black swan events, however.
Not as in "murder" but as in omission or acting in self-interest (and tragedy of the commons).
Um: War on Poverty, War on Cancer.
Seems to be a name thing.
The War on Cancer leads to people getting cancer "prevention" screenings that produce unnecessary operations and don't increase life expectancy.
It's about using violence to cut out the cancer in the early stages. It fits well into the pattern of the other examples.
I think this is an excellent distinction, +1
I disagree with the psychology a bit here. It's not that the war is exciting. It's that prevention has costs; taxes, inconvenience, etc. When people feel they're in a state of war they're very much willing to overlook the inconveniences; when there is no enemy in sight this does not happen. It feels like "state of war" is a basic (evolutionarily developed) psychological state.