(Replying to PARENT post)

No, walking around in Hazmat suits would be completely rational. Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event. Flu is the 9th leading cause of death in the U.S. A Hazmat suit is a perfect and completely rational barrier that completely eliminates that issue from your life - it's better and more full proof than a flu shot.

Here's the list and mitigation strategies if any: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm

1 - Heart disease: don't eat foodstuffs that are known to increase the probability of heart disease, get plenty of cardio.

2 - Cancer: avoid all known carcinogens, refined sugars, etc. stay out of the sun (made easy by being in a Hazmat suit all the time)

3 - Chronic lower respiratory diseases: avoid exposure to transmission vectors, hazmat suit solves this.

4 - Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): Similar to 1

5 - Accidents (unintentional injuries): Don't participate in risky movements or behaviors, wear a helmet at all times, keep a comprehensive first aid kit on your person with all modern emergency responder equipment. Follow the buddy rule, but don't stay too close, stay away from high probability of injury transport methods.

6 - Alzheimer's disease: no known mitigation strategy

7 - Diabetes: mostly diet, see #1 and 4

8 - Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: no known strategy, but don't eat foods that might challenge your kidneys

9 - Influenza and Pneumonia: Hazmat suit, solved

10 - Intentional self-harm (suicide): don't do this, solved

and then way down the list...

NNN - Death by terrorism with a probability so low that even during an active terrorist attack RMSs conjecture is to just keep on keeping on with your normal day-to-day routine.

๐Ÿ‘คbane๐Ÿ•‘12y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

> Logic dictates you need to start with the higher probability safety issues and start working down so long as a mitigation strategy exists for each type of event.

This seems to hinge on the assumption that we should value our lives infinitely. This isn't particularly logical, however, given the fact that most people do dangerous things. If you are like most people, you probably want to maximize your total happiness over the course of your life, regardless of how long it is. Would you rather be miserable and live to be 80, or live happily until 50?

So if the cost of mitigating such an event happening results in a lower expected net happiness than the cost of of the event happening (including all future happiness) multiplied by the probability of it happening, it would make logical sense to not attempt to mitigate it.

๐Ÿ‘คthatswrong0๐Ÿ•‘12y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

You're taking RMS's statement out of context. His point was that we not allow fear to overwhelm our senses so that we trade individual rights for security in police states, saying:

"Every death or injury is a sad thing, but the fact is that many happen every day, and we should not let these few upset us disproportionally more than the others. Let's make an effort not to get bent out of shape about them, so that we can resist when people try to cite them as an excuse for tyranny."

You're picking out his statement of proportionality as some sort of logical flaw in his argument, but you're completely missing the main point.

๐Ÿ‘คu2328๐Ÿ•‘12y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0

(Replying to PARENT post)

๐Ÿ‘คindrax๐Ÿ•‘12y๐Ÿ”ผ0๐Ÿ—จ๏ธ0