|
|
|
|
|
by arcticbull
2299 days ago
|
|
There's a 1% lifetime chance you die in a car accident and 2% you die of an opioid overdose. Roll a die between [0,199] and get a 0,1 you die in a car wreck. Roll a 2,3,4 or a 5, and you die of an opioid overdose. I'd be willing to bet somewhere around the 6-10 range represents your risk of dying of a climate related change. Rationally, you pretty confident that you won't die? Sure. But what behavior changes are you willing to tolerate not to have to take the chance? Evidently none, because here we are diving cars, taking painkillers and rolling coal. This is a solid read: [1]. If you're immunocompromised or old, by all means, stay inside and don't associate with groups of people. If you're young and healthy, you're totally unequivocally fine. This quote is particularly apropos: "...We're bad at accurately assessing risk; we tend to exaggerate spectacular, strange, and rare events, and downplay ordinary, familiar, and common ones." [1] https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2013/08/our_decreas... |
|
And Bruce isn't discussing a failure to assess the risk of COVID-19 (the article is from 2013). He's criticizing the fetish of expect technology to solve social problems. I've interviewed Bruce and I think he'd be appalled to think his essay was being misconstrued in this manner.