= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Dr_Manhattan 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.
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.