Are we doomed to slower advancement until advancements stop?

Page 1 of 61234>Last »
April 16th, 2014 at 4:06:29 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Imagine if I were to offer USA 2014 the following items, would they be accepted?


"I have a way to heat your house, very inexpensive and a nice, warm heat. Only problem is it is kind of flammable and will kill a few people a week in the USA due to fire or explosion. Would you be willing to use it?"

"I have a new pill for aches and pains. However, it can irritate the stomach, cause internal bleeding if overused, and kids should not take it with a fever. Would you be willing to take it?"

"I want to replace your means of transport with something cheaper and faster. One issue is that the wheels on it will need to be replaced 4-5 times during its lifetime and are hard to recycle. Want to buy one?"

"I have a new way to examine people medically. If overused it will cause cancer. Care to try it?"

Natural Gas, Aspirin, Car Tires, X-Rays


Think if you offered this to today's America. None would ever fly but today they are part of life. Are we so risk-adverse that we will not allow the next breakthrough?
The President is a fink.
April 16th, 2014 at 5:55:20 PM permalink
Evenbob
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 146
Posts: 25010
Times change. Oil refineries were horrendous polluters
100 years ago. They evolved & are safe for the environment
today. We just can't go from discovery/invention right into
the marketplace anymore. Every rule and regulation we
have comes from some stupid mistake we made in the
past.
If you take a risk, you may lose. If you never take a risk, you will always lose.
April 17th, 2014 at 1:12:01 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: Evenbob
Every rule and regulation we have comes from some stupid mistake we made in the past.


Some mistakes were more stupid than others
April 17th, 2014 at 2:48:12 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
Quote: Evenbob
Times change. Oil refineries were horrendous polluters
100 years ago. They evolved & are safe for the environment
today. We just can't go from discovery/invention right into
the marketplace anymore. Every rule and regulation we
have comes from some stupid mistake we made in the
past.


True, but neither can we wait until things are 100% safe.

Look at what is happening with brewers right now. For years they have sold cheap or given away spent grain to farmers. Both sides win, yet the feds all of the sudden want to regulate the practice for safety. And you can be sure a segment of the population will say, "well, if it saves even one life isn't it worth it?"
The President is a fink.
April 17th, 2014 at 8:21:55 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
True, but neither can we wait until things are 100% safe.

Look at what is happening with brewers right now. For years they have sold cheap or given away spent grain to farmers. Both sides win, yet the feds all of the sudden want to regulate the practice for safety. And you can be sure a segment of the population will say, "well, if it saves even one life isn't it worth it?"


I have said it else where.... it is so hard to argue against victims of accidents, but at some point you have to realuze that life is dangerous, and the ALARP principal for risj has to come into play. As Low As REASONABLY Possible. I would agree that often its too far. But try telling the parents of a dead child that your not going to fence of the swimming hole where Johnny drowned, because 100s of kids play there and don't die. Of course they want something to be done. Its as natural as anything.
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
April 17th, 2014 at 8:31:52 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: TheCesspit
... at some point you have to realuze that life is dangerous, and the ALARP principal for risj has to come into play.


The Precautionary Principle states that if an action or policy has a suspected risk of causing harm to the public or to the environment, in the absence of scientific consensus that the action or policy is harmful, the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking an action.

The principle implies that there is a social responsibility to protect the public from exposure to harm, when scientific investigation has found a plausible risk. The term, "precautionary principle" is generally considered to have arisen in English from a translation of the German term Vorsorgeprinzip in the 1980s.

If you get in the middle of a case involving the PP watch out.
April 17th, 2014 at 9:49:16 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 135
Posts: 18136
I sometimes wonder if we put too much value on life. They just said all cars will need backup cameras, cost of said cameras is over $1 Million per life saved. Now yes, they have other value. But If kids are playing in the area, you look more before you back up. If you drive a small car like I do you need no camera. The extra cost of cameras will force more kids into older, less safe cars-something I doubt they considered.

Something happened in USA Society between about 1970-1986. Think pre-1970 and it was always advance, advance, advance. Faster transport was the rule. We settled a frontier, fough wars, and pushed technology at every chance. I put the peak at when we walked on the moon. JFK made that challenge for 9 years (end of decade) and we met it. In 1960 we didn't even know if a man could survive in space, but we jumped at the chance.

Post 1970 things stopped progressing and after the Challenger Disaster there were people who wanted the space program stopped because "people got killed." 55 MPH speed limit to "save lives" took forever to repeal no matter how slow it seemed.

On a smaller scale I told people I wanted a convertible. Still want another one. The reply I often got? "What if you roll over?" My reply of "I guess I will be dead" got weird looks. But I know only one guy ever rolled a car and it was 100% him driving like an idiot.

Was once talking about air bags and how the salesman mentioned my car had six, told a woman about 3 years older and she agreed she didn't care either. After some back and forth a younger one shrieked, "ARE YOU TWO CRAZY? NO AIR BAGS?"

I have probably 100 examples large and small. We are scared to death of any risk at all in the USA. Well, 47% of us are, 20% go with the flow, and the rest last 1/3 go out of our way not to listen to the hysteria.
The President is a fink.
April 17th, 2014 at 10:58:41 AM permalink
TheCesspit
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 23
Posts: 1929
Quote: AZDuffman
I have probably 100 examples large and small. We are scared to death of any rish at all in the USA. Well, 47% of us are, 20% go with the flow, and the rest last 1/3 go out of our way not to listen to the hysteria.


(head desk)
It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die.... it's called Life
April 17th, 2014 at 11:13:23 AM permalink
chickenman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 0
Posts: 368
Quote: AZDuffman

55 MPH speed limit to "save lives" took forever to repeal no matter how slow it seemed.

IIRC it was ostensibly to save gas after the embargo(s) but it did seem like forever to get rid of it.

Good post BTW
He's everywhere, he's everywhere...!
April 17th, 2014 at 11:21:28 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 1068
Posts: 12569
Quote: AZDuffman
We are scared to death of any rish at all in the USA.


Look at the line from the document Underwater Blast Injuries Originally published in "Trauma & Emergency Medicine Vol 17 No 2 July 2000 in South Africa.
A man, unharmed by an air explosion of a hand grenade at 5m (out of shrapnel line) would be killed by the same explosion underwater. Float on back on surface.. Lift the chest & abdomen out of the water, on a solid support. Face away from explosion.

I remember wondering how they came up with advice like this. The answer is that the British Navy personnel considered it so important in WWII that they did experiments on volunteers. If they were at 12' deep a certain distance from the explosion they would get knocked out and had to be rescued before they drowned. They would then volunteer to do it again at the same range but near the surface. The same explosion wouldn't knock them out and there would be less tissue damage if they could get their abdomens out of the water.

I was thinking how different things are today. Such an experiment (even on volunteers) would be illegal. But people in the war thought it was very important to get data so they could give sound advice.

So if you are being bombed while in SCUBA gear, your first instinct would be to dive deep so that they can't see you and get closer to you. But you are better off getting near the surface as you probably won't survive. We owe that advice to some volunteers in the 1940's.

-------------------
As a side product to this story, you often hear that people shouldn't do animal research since they have computer models. It amazes me that people think that you can do reliable computer models on such incredibly complicated things as the human body undergoing trauma. Computer models may reduce the amount of real life testing that you need to do, but they will never eliminate the need.

But doing testing on air breathing animals underwater is also difficult. Pigs tend to panic if you put them in SCUBA gear, and they often are so agitated that you can't get reliable conclusions.
Page 1 of 61234>Last »