It’s fascinating to me what a different view of risk we had in the past.
The no damage being caused on the surface was a “new fact”. That would never fly today, for better or for worse.
replies(1):
The no damage being caused on the surface was a “new fact”. That would never fly today, for better or for worse.
Aside from that, culturally the value we impart on a single human life has also changed too - death used to be much more common, infant death in particular - its not uncommon to go to an old cemetery and see a single family having buried three or more children, with another 2-3 having survived to adulthood. This was not something limited to the lower classes either, Calvin Coolidge had a son who died of sepsis from a blister while he was president.
People, individually, should take risks if that's what they want, and it's not going to hurt others. I'm totally fine with skydiving, base jumping, rock climbing, whatever. I'm not fine with pumping chemicals into the local water table because that's the way Grandpa do.
A thought experiment: if we could install a device which increases the likelihood of everyone surviving a car crash by 0.001%, but it costs $100,000 should it be mandated in every car? After all, this involves a victim as well.
I don’t think anyone would agree to that particular law. There is inevitably going to be a cutoff where you say “the increased safety is no longer worth the cost”. That’s acceptable risk and it’s not only good, it’s absolutely necessary to a functioning society.
I mean we can do that right now and we don’t.
However we do mandate rear back up camera which costs $1-2k and saves some percentage of lives when backing up.
So it’s all about balance.