MrSheepish
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2009
- Messages
- 137
So much of modern politics is driven by fear of death, but we seem to have no idea what is actually likely to kill us, and a distorted view of what needs to be done to protect people. Some of our fears really baffle me, and I feel that they cause significant harm to our nation. Anyone disagree, or have suggestions about what can be done about it? Here are three examples:
-The death of a few thousand civilians on 9/11, while a tragedy, is less than the number of people killed from cigarettes in four days. Yet this event has reshaped our nation and we have spent trillions of $ in war, espionage, and security measures in response to it.
-In terms of energy production, we are so scared of radiation that we would rather burn dirty coal than build nuclear plants. Even ignoring the significant dangers from global warming, the crap that is spewed into the air from coal can cause cancer, and kills people. In contrast, many studies have failed to find evidence of deaths being caused by radiation in nuclear plants. But we regulate the safety of nuclear plants far more tightly, and have denied all permits for new ones to be constructed for decades.
-Finally, our space program is paralyzed by an irrational fear of death. Instead of dreaming big, taking risks, and reaching for the stars as our nation once did, we are now so terrified of losing any people that NASA wastes enormous amounts of money and time it can't afford trying to eliminate every possible problem before committing to anything. Yes, astronauts put themselves in grave danger when they agree to go aboard the shuttles. This is one of the most dangerous things a person can do, and no amount of safety work will change that. But they all want to take this risk, so let them do it. NASA's big plan is to go to Mars. But we will never accomplish this unless we are willing to lose people. The only suggestion I have ever heard that makes the trip sound like it might be affordable is to ditch the bulky radiation shielding, vehicles, fuel, and food for a return voyage and send the astronauts on a one-way trip. Plenty of people would jump without hesitation at the chance to live their dreams in this way even if they knew they would die at the end. Why can't we let them if that's the only way the trip would ever happen?
Why should some lives (those of terrorist victims, radiation victims, and astronauts) be so much more sacred than those of the vastly more numerous victims of less sexy threats that we chose to distort our policies like this?
-The death of a few thousand civilians on 9/11, while a tragedy, is less than the number of people killed from cigarettes in four days. Yet this event has reshaped our nation and we have spent trillions of $ in war, espionage, and security measures in response to it.
-In terms of energy production, we are so scared of radiation that we would rather burn dirty coal than build nuclear plants. Even ignoring the significant dangers from global warming, the crap that is spewed into the air from coal can cause cancer, and kills people. In contrast, many studies have failed to find evidence of deaths being caused by radiation in nuclear plants. But we regulate the safety of nuclear plants far more tightly, and have denied all permits for new ones to be constructed for decades.
-Finally, our space program is paralyzed by an irrational fear of death. Instead of dreaming big, taking risks, and reaching for the stars as our nation once did, we are now so terrified of losing any people that NASA wastes enormous amounts of money and time it can't afford trying to eliminate every possible problem before committing to anything. Yes, astronauts put themselves in grave danger when they agree to go aboard the shuttles. This is one of the most dangerous things a person can do, and no amount of safety work will change that. But they all want to take this risk, so let them do it. NASA's big plan is to go to Mars. But we will never accomplish this unless we are willing to lose people. The only suggestion I have ever heard that makes the trip sound like it might be affordable is to ditch the bulky radiation shielding, vehicles, fuel, and food for a return voyage and send the astronauts on a one-way trip. Plenty of people would jump without hesitation at the chance to live their dreams in this way even if they knew they would die at the end. Why can't we let them if that's the only way the trip would ever happen?
Why should some lives (those of terrorist victims, radiation victims, and astronauts) be so much more sacred than those of the vastly more numerous victims of less sexy threats that we chose to distort our policies like this?