[blip54321]

Is it the role of society to stop people from taking risks they willingly accept? And at what point?

If I want to skydive? Kayak across the Atlantic? Run a fight club? Build a custom homestead? Smoke? Drink? Do drugs? Play Russian Roulette?

Where's the line? There's one somewhere. To me, digging tunnels feels like the sort of thing which we should allow. Some of the others, I'm okay banning.

[rurp]

I think we should absolutely allow people to pursue dangerous activities they are passionate about. Having limits on how far rescuers will go to bail you out of trouble is also perfectly fair.

[bell-cot]

Within your own property lines (and mineral rights), away from all utility lines and easements, and done so as not to damage nor undermine any neighbor's property or structures, yes.

In short - either do it out in the country, or get appropriate permits.

[dylan604]

Certain activities do have a high level of risk acceptance by society. Sky diving includes the use of a large amounts of paperwork with an additional video recording of your accepting of said risks. On a visit to Hawaii, there are signs post that say if you continue past the sign, you are accepting there are risks involved that the state is no longer responsible for.

The accepted role of society seems to be that if you want to do risky things, we're going to make sure we're not liable.

[UncleEntity]

So he puts up a warning sign on his private property saying he is liable for his own risky behavior?

[JasonFruit]

Why ought we to ban the others? That you're okay banning certain activities is no justification for stopping those who want to do them.

[blip54321]

(1) Societal impacts sometimes are

(2) People not actually wanting to do them sometimes is a good reason too (e.g. free market forces, addiction, peer pressure)

China after the opium wars is a good example of how this can play out.

[_moof]

Without commenting on the role of society in this particular issue, I'll note that you have to know and understand the risks in order to accept them. And in my experience (aerospace) people are exceptionally bad at both identifying and assessing risk in areas outside their field of expertise.

[tiahura]

When their accepted risks have consequences for society - like cleaning up a collapsed tunnel / ocean rescue / rehab - then, yes.

[xboxnolifes]

> collapsed tunnel / ocean rescue / rehab

Two of those things are something society can choose to not do. Can't necessarily ignore a collapsed tunnel in certain areas, but the alternative of banning an activity can be removing responsibility of rescue.

[tiahura]

Perhaps in China, or some other country that doesn’t value human life. In the West we generally don’t just watch people drown and say “sucks to be them.”

[krapp]

>To me, digging tunnels feels like the sort of thing which we should allow.

Except, you know, there might be electrical lines, sewer lines, water pipes, etc, underground. It might also affect property value, if your tunnel floods it could lead to mosquitos, lots of unintended consequences could happen.

Also, if you have a family, loved ones, friends, etc, they also have a right to try to stop you from doing something potentially stupid.

Although I guess if you want to buy an island or some land all by yourself and dig holes all day, whatever. Otherwise, we live in a society and when what we do has consequences for others around us, society tends to get involved.

[mardifoufs]

Should we then police the caloric intake of people too? Obesity kills way way more people than tunnels. Like where's the line? And while tunneling might damage utilities, obesity is putting a strain on the healthcare system. To be sure, I'm not saying we should treat overweight people any differently. It's just that your reasoning can be used to justify disallowing pretty much everything that isn't risk free. "We live in a society" goes both ways and does not imply individuals need to give up everything for the greater good

[krapp]

I think you're confusing the premise that society should have limits with the premise that things should be illegal. We do police caloric intake, and honestly I think we should do more because obesity and associated problems cost the American taxpayer $200 billion per year. Other societies than the US are healthier because those societies believe that the collective has a responsibility to individuals and individuals to the collective, and vice versa the government.

We limit risky behaviors all the time as well. It's illegal to parkour on private property, but not everywhere. It's illegal to freedive and BASE jump in many places, but not everywhere. Some caves aren't legal to explore, for others, you have to be an expert. Expertise is a way society gatekeeps many dangerous activities. If you're under the age of 18 or older than 75, you can't climb Mount Everest.

We no longer put heroin or cocaine in soda, we regulate some drugs and outlaw others on the premise that addiction poses a burden both on the society and the individual. We also have doctors and treatment centers as society's way of intermediating between people and bad behaviors.

And yes, there are reasonable limits placed both by society and by the law, on where and how and how big you can dig holes. It isn't an unacceptable imposition on your personal liberty that you just cant take a shovel anywhere you like and start digging anywhere you want.

>"We live in a society" goes both ways and does not imply individuals need to give up everything for the greater good.

No, it doesn't and I never claimed it did.