Hacker Newsnew | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Why? Seems like a smart solution to a problem.

We have designed many of the risks out of cars too, and I for one appreciate that.




It is a smart solution to the problem, to an extent: mitigating risks in ways that are unrelated to the intended functionality of the product is usually a good idea. But mitigating risks inherent to the nature of the product in a way that reduces the product's functionality, reliability, or adaptability for other purposes isn't an appropriate solution.

More broadly, and more importantly, designing risk out of our environment gives us less fodder for the development of our own faculties for risk judgment, and therefore makes us more dependent on external articles and less so on intelligence and caution for our safety, and this ironically makes is more risky for us to explore aspects of the world which haven't been already made artificially safe, and more subject to danger if the external sources of risk should shift.

In other words, maintaining risk-free environments ultimately makes us less adaptable, makes the prospect of change riskier, and therefore reduces our evolutionary fitness.

-----




Applications are open for YC Winter 2016

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: