swestrup: (Default)
[personal profile] swestrup
Thanks to [livejournal.com profile] peaceful_dragon for pointing out this article on the harm done by avoiding risk. Its a flaw I have in my personal life that I've been working on. (Sure, I can think outside the box and invent a new idea with what I think is huge profit potential, but am I willing to, for example, sell my house and mortgage the cats to raise the money to try and make it real -- no way.)

It also bears a relation to my previous post, but I'm not sure how obvious that is to anyone but me.

I've been meaning to post about the uniqueness of obviousness for over a week now, but haven't had the time. Its also possible that when I've more fully digested the above article I'll have more to say on that topic as well.

Oh, and I loved the illustrations.

Date: 2006-02-01 09:51 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
I did push literature on you back in about 1989 ("The Health Hazards of NOT Going Nuclear", by Petr Beckmann) that made that point. A few years before that, my fourth-year Ethics class was taught by a very left-wing, anti-nuclear professor (I used to argue with him vociferously after classes, and I also lent Beckmann's book to him -- he had in a previous year made a very rabid antinuclear public talk, repeating the large quantities of (incorrect) superstitions that exist on the subject). I put up my hand in class and related the story of a young German man who stopped eating meat due to concern over health risks. Then he stopped eating grains and produce because of concerns over risks due to pesticides. He ended up starving to death. The class (of engineers) laughed and the prof looked pissed-off (chagrined). Here lies a pseudo-scientist! Finally at zero risk!

Date: 2006-02-01 09:57 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
The above story of the German risk-aversion nut was from Beckmann's newsletter, "Access To Energy", still in publication by Arthur B. Robinson (http://www.accesstoenergy.com -- all of Beckmann's issues and some of Robinson's are now online there)

Date: 2006-02-03 02:46 am (UTC)
From: (Anonymous)
Of course I read the same book, and it didn't annoy me -- you could look at it differently, and enjoy the way he pounces on the idiots and savages them with his teeth -- as Spider Robinson put it. Robinson was uncomfortable with the book's tone, but he reported that after sitting in front of his Toshiba for a week and watching the Seabrook and Shoreham demonstrations in which the anti-nukes pulled out all the stops (I saw a Time Magazine article with pictures of anti-nuke demonstrators yelling at the tops of their voices -- it was hard to believe that human mouths could open so far), he decided to recommend the book unreservedly, in his Analog Magazine book review column.

Date: 2006-02-03 02:47 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
That was me; I forgot to register the message...

Date: 2006-02-03 03:13 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
I'm reminded of Galileo, who was right, but was politically incorrect about it, so that the Church Fathers lost face, leading them to place him under house arrest and force him to recant.

Date: 2006-02-03 06:30 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
Of course the point is not that you should believe something just because Spider Robinson says so, but that you should agree that the response in tHHoNGN is rather small compared to the vituperation on the part of the anti-nukes, and, I urge, agree that it is justified.
No doubt one of the items that you thought talked down to you was the graphic depicition of the risks of coal, showing a large paragraph or two of crosses to represent the deaths from that, while showing a tiny dot to depict the deaths from nuclear power "For those who can't do simple arithmetic, there are visual aids" (-Spider). I think this just shows a good deal of frustration on the part of the pro-nuke side, since the anti-nukes are notoriously lacking in a sense of perspective. They hear that there is a risk, and they start screaming about it without stopping to think about magnitudes, compare risks, or consider the risk of "no risk". If you didn't read all the way through the book (THHoNgN), you might have missed the explanation that "a sense of perspective is what this book is about." I gave a class presentation about deep space communications, and one of my fellow engineering students actually put up his hand and asked if the few watts of energy in which the Earth is bathed by transmissions back from space probes might harm the environment. In retrospect, I wanted to tell the class that as engineers, one of our roles to the public should be to educate them about the meaning of orders of magnitude.
Another depiction of this frustration was depicted in "Star Trek the Next Generation", when Dr. Crusher protests to the Captain that the tiny risk represented by the sickness carried by a patient in sickbay did not merit killing the sick person in order to protect the guardian's charge -- this was the episode in which Wesley meets a shape-changing girl.
There's a good deal of cutting humor in THHoNgN, as you may have noticed; you shouldn't take it personally, but rather see it as directed against the irrational.

Date: 2006-02-04 08:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
Of course my point was that a bit of vituperation constitued balancing, not lies and distortions. As Spider Robinson wrote in his review, which I at least mentioned lending you back in ~1989, what we need is the truth, repeated as loudly and as often as possible. Beckmann stated that he was proud of his readers, who wouldn't let him get away with any errors. I don't believe he would have willingly lied and distorted anywhere; you shouldn't take his tone so personally that you edge into believing that.
There were more than one illustration of comparative risks using rows of crosses. I'm not sure he committed the fallacy of not "comparing apples with apples"; perhaps we should take another look.

Date: 2006-02-05 10:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile] capj.livejournal.com
I took another look at it, and he does not miscompare in those diagrams or elsewhere AFAIK. He compares deaths and other health problems per unit energy produced, which is a key point of the book.

January 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 3rd, 2025 01:59 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios