The Orion's Arm Universe Project Forums





The case for Autointerdiction.
#8
(01-18-2017, 06:33 AM)Bear Wrote: All of these things are missing the main point.

I disagree. All of these things are addressing your main point in various ways. I would also point out that you aren't arguing against the points I've raised, but have instead simply dismissed them - which really isn't answering them or providing countervailing data or arguments. Anyway.

(01-18-2017, 06:33 AM)Bear Wrote: Before allowing humans to leave: no risk from humans who have left.
After allowing humans to leave: that risk exists.

And I think that's where the laser-focused little bean-counters will stop looking.

How its severity *compares* to other risks is immaterial. Whether there are *similar* risks is immaterial. Whether it reduces some other risk is meaningful ONLY if the reduction is greater and shorter-term than the risk it introduces. When someone is talking about the risk of traffic fatalities, it's kind of silly to point out that the risk of airline fatalities is worse if people don't wear seat belts.

I see some flaws in your logic:

a) You are ignoring the fact that humans do not simply assess risk in a vacuum, nor do they assess any and all risk as being an existential or infinite one without any counterbalancing benefits. Or to put it another way: You are ignoring the benefit side of the cost-benefit analysis. Presumably anyone considering sending out colonies, either to other planets or other stars, will be doing so because they feel there is a net positive to be gained by this. That there is the potential for future negative 'costs' may be considered, but if they see the benefits as being near term and/or concrete and the potential hazard as being distant and hypothetical then they are just as likely to go with the benefit and let the potential cost take care of itself - especially when that potential cost is hundreds or thousands of years in the future and is not a sure thing.

b) There are various historical precedents to support the idea that the creation of potential rivals or threats will not prevent 'bean counters' from going ahead and doing something. For a major example, consider the various colonial powers of yesteryear, in particular the British Empire. By the same argument you are making here, none of these powers should have ever risked colonizing the new world. But they did it anyway because they saw a benefit(s) in it that presumably outweight the cost(s). And indeed, the US, Canada, India, and Australia could pose a severe challenge or threat to Great Britain if they wanted to (the situation with other former colonies varies quite a lot with regard to their former colonizers). And there have been instances when they have been enemies. But there are also many many periods where they have been/currently are allies and friends (insofar as nation-states can be friends). Unless you are going to argue that laser focused bean counters didn't exist in the British Empire or other colonial powers of the day?

c) In my first point, I mentioned 'sure things'. Humans have a long history of doing all kinds of things that all the available data says has a high probability of being bad for them, either because they find the 'benefit' to outweigh the potential cost or because they think the odds will work out in their favor or for some similar reason. Whether this could be classified as 'foolishness' or 'hope', humans (including bean counters) demonstrate it all the time and have all through their history.

d) Even in cases where there is absolute recorded proof of how much of a risk something can be, humans will often go ahead and do it anyway. 9/11 demonstrated how commercial jets can destroy entire buildings and kill thousands of people. Tens of thousands of people die every year in car accidents or due to gun violence. However, the response to these things has not been to cease the use and production of commercial airlines, cars, or guns. Rather, people take steps to try to prevent or mitigate any potential downsides, mainly because they don't want to give up the various upsides/benefits that also flow from the devices or situations in question. Or they feel the 'cost' or risk of the loss of these things outweighs the cost/risk of keeping them.

e) Finally, you mention bean counters not caring about anyone not of their nation. The simple answer to that, at least for interplanetary colonies is to consider their inhabitants to be members of the nation that founded them, with all the rights thereof. As such, the bean counters would (by your own logic) care about them as they do their own citizens. Interstellar colonies would be hard pressed to consider themselves part of a founding nation in a lightspeed limited universe, but the risk they pose is also likely to be considered minimal for the same reason. Why would two different star systems want to go to war anyway?

Todd
Reply


Messages In This Thread
The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-17-2017, 07:01 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-17-2017, 07:50 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-17-2017, 02:36 PM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-17-2017, 03:26 PM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-18-2017, 06:33 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-18-2017, 12:33 PM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-22-2017, 05:30 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-22-2017, 07:42 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-18-2017, 06:42 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-22-2017, 02:36 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by selden - 01-22-2017, 07:19 AM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-22-2017, 12:56 PM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Bear - 01-22-2017, 05:04 PM
RE: The case for Autointerdiction. - by Drashner1 - 01-23-2017, 07:31 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)