Hacker News Reader

Comment by dwg | Hacker News Reader

> We estimate that these laws prevented only 57 car crash fatalities of children nationwide in 2017. Simultaneously, they led to a permanent reduction of approximately 8,000 births in the same year, and 145,000 fewer births since 1980, with 90% of this decline being since 2000

Ironic... but a would-be birth vs. loss of life in an accident are immeasurably different things; incomparable.

As an slightly off-topic aside, I live in a rural area of Japan where, in my experience, most kids ride without car seats. In fact, small children around 3 to 6 often don't use seatbelts, instead standing between the seats or sit on an adults lap. There is a apparently a child seat law, but it seems a large number of people ignore it. I think the big reason is a lower accident rate, due to more careful driving.

View on HN

> a would-be birth vs. loss of life in an accident are immeasurably different things; incomparable.

They're not incomparable, in fact they must be traded off at some rate, otherwise you could just dose everyone in the world with chemicals to sterilize us and say "well now there definitely won't be any child deaths"

This is clearly a case of “a difference in amount makes a difference in kind”. The complete sterilization of the human race is so different from “multi child households will be less likely to have a third child”. They are incomparable to actual living child deaths because they are theoretical vs real. A theoretical person is not a conscious creature. It is an idea in an actual conscious creatures head. It cannot suffer. Its value is measured purely in how it could affect society, positively and negatively, if it had have been born. A real person is conscious and can suffer and their death is a direct loss to them and those around them. That is not comparable.

Yeah, I understand this argument but I think it's bad philosophy. You need to think 4-dimensionally: everyone was a "theoretical" person if you go back far enough and making rules that harm people in the future but not in the present leads to wild temporal inconsistencies.

Perhaps it's clearer to think about a person-slot of a particular type in a particular time. If I go back to say 1930, you were probably just a person-slot, not an actual person.

Not only is the equation of deaths to would-be births obviously flawed, the notion of quantifiable independent factors in decision to produce a child is excessively reductionist. There are not 8,000 couples who thought "I am 99% ready for a 3rd baby, but the car seats are the deal breaker"

also to your aside, japan has uniformly considerate, alert, and obedient drivers, more than i've experienced anywhere else. The only exception seemed to be foreign cab drivers.

If you read their methodology they are basically proving people made that exact decision. It very airtight. I can definitely see safety conscious or risk averse parents making that exact decision or the decision to delay a child and then never getting around to it.

8000 fewer births per year is excellent from an ecological standpoint, though.

Not for those 8,000 would-be people .... And for their parents?

It isn’t negative or positive, because “would be” people are not real. They are an abstract idea in someone’s head. There are an almost infinite number of would be people. Every time a contraceptive is used, that is a would be person not born. Every time someone does not take the opportunity to have sex, that is a would be person not born. Every single egg not fertilized is a would be person not born. Those “8,000” don’t exist right along with the trillion other would be people, except in the heads of actual living conscious creatures.

This seems rather inconsiderate of all the people who would like to have children but decide they can't or shouldn't because of the cost.

It isn't inconsiderate because I am not talking about actual living people and the problems they have or the suffering they may be experiencing. They are conscious and are worthy of our concern. What isn’t worthy of concern is the abstract idea of “X number of would be people” because those aren’t actual living things, they are just a concept in someone’s head about a possible alternate reality where these hypothetical people could have existed. 8 thousand, 8 million, or 8 billion hypothetical imaginary children mean less than 1 real child. But the suffering of 8,000 real people that could not have a child that they wanted would be worthy of concern. The concept of the possible child, in and of itself, is not. Otherwise every month would be a genocide of “would be children” lost to the menstrual cycle.

What has the impact been though from families that still have 3 kids and buy larger cars/SUVs than they would have otherwise?

Removing a birth removes a full lifetime of emissions (all the cars that person would have bought) as well as any future children of that kid; over the long term, the extra emissions from adding a person grow exponentially, while adding a larger car (for a kid that would have existed anyway) is a one-time fixed cost. So, as t->infinity, fewer kids is going to win from a co2 perspective.

So the question is just where the crossover point is (if any; the 8000 fewer kids might already simply offset any larger cars bought within the first year - i don't know). I suppose that requires estimating the number of larger cars bought for third children per year, and comparing to the yearly emissions for people as they age.

Yes the authors here really sound like this is an argument to relax the car seat age, but that sounds like a ridiculous argument to me.

Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid?

It's just an insightful paper of an effect, well-proven and thought provoking. I don't think they are advocating for fewer car seats.

On the other hand, how many kids are killed by huge SUV's bought to fit the third child seat where the driver can't see a children in front of their car?

"Kill" is a very strong exaggeration though. Pretty much all the proper research I've ever stumbled upon claimed no measurable effect of child car seats or booster seats over the age of 8. First hit from Google today:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180105124030.h...

> Do you think we should kill this random child if it would lead to (8000/57) = 104 families who can't afford a minivan to decide to have a third kid?

Yes, it seems like a great deal to me.

EDIT: Though I guess you could see it as a form of eugenics; "pay this much in order to have a third child"; but then it probably disproportionately hits middle class families rather than those who are at the very bottom. Many things are like this.

We don’t mandate 5 point harnesses in all vehicles, even though they would save far more than 57 lives. Life is a never ending risk calculation and a constant tradeoff between safety and convenience. There is a point where everyone would stop making additional tradeoffs but that is not the same as active killing.

And here there's no tradeoff. Saving 57 lives and having 8000 fewer births are both net positives.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com