Hacker News Reader

Comment by goatcode | Hacker News Reader

Should we treat all behaviors that are associated with a significantly increased mortality rate the same way, or should we pick and choose depending on the political and social context at the time, like we do with seatbelts?

View on HN

Few other behaviors associated with increase mortality can also turn you into a missile.

https://youtu.be/bdW_3oQFO0c?t=42

Be that as it may, that wasn't the point I was replying to.

Is not missiling into another person a form of externality?

Perhaps, but that's not what the comment was addressing. If it were, your point would not address living after having become a missile.

I would say we generally do exactly that, when the threshold is significant enough and it's a behavior that has no beneficial/ safe level (we tax and restrict cigarettes heavily, but not so much overconsumption of food etc. Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles).

>Arguably we should/could have penalties for failing to get enough exercise, though there are almost certainly better ways to reduce dangerously sedentary lifestyles

This is my point: we pick and choose, and we're subject to the whims of society, when it comes to what we deem unacceptable. Citing a collective norm that potentially could have been influenced by societal ebbs and flows is not an objective argument, ever.

Absolutely - regulation is hard. I wonder if there are successful instances of government using big-data/ML to determine where, when and in what manner it makes sense to apply it. And would people vote for governments that relied solely on that for what legislation to enact...

Generally yes. That’s why sugar taxes are needed and popular with economists.

What would you say should be the threshold for increased mortality that would subject a given behavior to heavy taxation and regulation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com