[wwweston]

The point is that you can see this lottery as a cruel horror. You immediately hate it. It's obvious to us as the readers because it's outside our experience. Of course we wouldn't regularly just draw lots to stone someone to death, that's crazy and good people wouldn't put up with it, right?

What are the lotteries you don't see, because you're used to them, and they're just part of how the world works, like this one is to the people in the story?

If you're looking, you can find them. But it's also as uncomfortable to find them in real life as it is to read the story. So, most of us are happy to keep some other ideas between us and these lotteries. Those people just didn't do the right things. They should have been more careful, more prepared, more like the people who didn't get stoned. They should have done it the right way. They should have known their place. And if it's their time, well, what are you gonna do, mondays amirite?

And if that's true, then you can be safe because you will do the right things. And nobody has to go to the bother of persuading a society with any changes at the margins on which it sacrifices random people.

[like_any_other]

> If you're looking, you can find them.

Could you give us a hint?

[mjd]

Hit-and-run vehicle collisions.

Innocent bystanders of gang violence.

Factory workers killed by industrial machinery.

That chemical tank in Los Angeles that is about to explode.

Woman in Arkansas with ectopic pregnancy. (Abortion is illegal in Arkansas.)

Now you think of one.

[like_any_other]

Abortion in Arkansas is legal to save the life of the mother: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_Arkansas

None of your other examples are comparable to the story. They're not deliberate deaths caused by adherence to some tradition. They wouldn't be prevented if people "just stopped doing it". They're accidents and violence, that we've taken reasonable steps to prevent (traffic laws, car safety standards, the criminal justice system, worker safety laws,...), but haven't been 100% successful.

[mjd]

“She Faced a Life-Threatening Miscarriage. Under Arkansas’ Abortion Ban, Even Calls to the Governor’s Office Didn’t Help.”

That's from this morning, reported in ProPublica.

https://www.propublica.org/article/arkansas-abortion-ban-mis...

[like_any_other]

Then the example is valid.

[gord288]

Supposed “exceptions” for the life of the mother are largely ineffective in practice. By design. https://www.politifact.com/article/2023/jun/23/all-abortion-...

[mjd]

The comment I was responding to asked for examples of “lotteries you don't see, because you're used to them, and they're just part of how the world works, like this one is to the people in the story”. The comment wasn't asking for “deliberate deaths caused by adherence to some tradition”.

[like_any_other]

Expanding the idea of "lottery" that much makes it meaningless, and useless as social commentary. Sometimes people die of cancer, or lightning, or shark attacks, and eventually of old age. What insight is there in calling them "lotteries you don't see"?

[gord288]

None of your three examples are actions that are willingly (either actively or passively) carried out collectively by people in society.

[jhbadger]

At the time (1948), lynchings of Black people accused of crimes (or just not suitablely "humble") were still practiced in the South and some people seriously defended the practice as part of Southern tradition.

[wwweston]

Perhaps like Jackson, I think it can be useful to prompt people in a way that might nudge them to notice on their own.

Giving examples of specific "lotteries" I see is just as likely to activate those psychological mechanisms I talked about (or a partisan frame) as it is to open anyone's eyes.

If you want hints, though, watch for where you see the psychological mechanisms in yourself or others. "Those people just didn't do the right things. They should have been more careful, more prepared, more like the people who didn't get stoned. They should have done it the right way. They should have known their place. And if it's their time, well, what are you gonna do, mondays amirite?"

If you hear someone saying something like that, if you find yourself saying it... interrogate that. There may sometimes be real truth to it. But ask yourself: is that really all there is to it? Does the world have to be that way? If it were your child who "drew the lot", would you be satisfied?

[digdugdirk]

Being born to the wrong parents, or in the wrong neighbourhood, or with any number of medical issues.

[WalterBright]

If you try too hard to prevent deaths, you wind up causing deaths.

[wwweston]

Some may notice this response is in good company with the other psychological mechanisms we use to avoid confronting "lotteries."

Like "they didn't prepare correctly" or "they didn't do the right things" or "mondays amirite" there may even be cases where it's true, and a robust analysis of lottery situations sometimes reveals local maxima or tradeoffs that are tough to shake.

But they can also be spoken with a post-hoc resignation that discourages the very analysis that might confirm them... because such an analysis might also disaffirm them.

One question to ask is whether a way of addressing a "lottery" encourages you to stop analysis and reflection, or to work your way through analysis and reflection.

[WalterBright]

Everything you do risks death in one way or another. Even eating (you can choke to death). Maybe a regulation requiring all food must be liquefied?

[wwweston]

That's a great way of announcing that you didn't read my comment, which actually accounts for the principled version of the point you're ideologically abusing.

[WalterBright]

I find your prose difficult to read, and made my best guess at it.

Your prose could also be improved by omitting the rude remarks.

[Retric]

Only if you’re ineffective. One of the best ways to prevent people dying is promoting long term economic growth.

[coldtea]

If you try too hard to be anti-regulation you cause even more deaths and misery.

[WalterBright]

Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives.

https://www.amazon.com/Regulation-Pharmaceutical-Innovation-...

https://www.amazon.com/Overdose-Government-Regulation-Pharma...

Aviation engines still use leaded gas for general aviation due to regulations that make it impractical to redesign the engines.

https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/leaded-gas-wa...

For more information, google "why do cessna engines still use leaded gas?"

[Retric]

Net deaths is what matters here. Obviously they aren’t perfect, but no human system is.

The market for effective drugs is global. FDA regulations have a significant but not that burdensome influence on drug discovery. At the other end, the opioid epidemic is a demonstration of just how many deaths can result from insufficient regulation of just a single drug family.

Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost. Conservative estimates put it somewhere in the 2 orders of magnitude range.

[WalterBright]

> Which is why FDA regulations vs zero regulation have saved vastly more lives than they cost.

The first book I linked to did the research and showed otherwise. The key aspect usually not admitted is the deaths caused by drugs not developed due to costly regulations.

[Retric]

I hope you can understand why a book with a “Publication date ‏ : ‎ December 31, 1974” might have some gaps here in terms of relevant research and current regulations.

As to the leaded gas issue, that’s a function of less strict regulations allowing unleaded gas. Many countries have banned it without issue.

[coldtea]

>Regulation of drugs has caused deaths due to high cost of compliance with FDA regulations meaning far fewer drugs get developed that may save lives.

What about the lives saved by crappy unsafe drugs coming to an unregulated market, either because they're snake oil / ineffective but marketed as potent, or because they're actively harmful, or non properly tested?

As for the book suggestions: free market economists in favor of deregulation? Color me surprised!

[WalterBright]

That's covered by the book I linked to.