"Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Yes, we do use names for different policies. But those 'idealists' wanting control may actually want it for its own sake rather than the good of humanity. That's pretty obvious as we look around. There are other options. If we lived on the basis of need rather than greed, quite a lot might change. And yes, comfort appeals to us all, even to the extent of denying what is plainly happening around us. As David makes clear, reality urges us to take risks, change our life styles perhaps, consider other options. Taking responsibility for the way things are takes a decision, but acting on that may help us see where we need to change as individuals. And that often changes what happens around us.
It is pretty clear that we have to recover our sense of adventure, reduce our dependance on government, and trust our own convictions. We don't have to remain curmudgeons!
When I was growing up on the 1950s we climbed trees we weren't meant to and sometimes fell out, we made trolleys from fruit crates and careered down steep inclines and often fell out, with attendant broken teeth or bones. We rode our bikes around the farm without crash helmets and safety pads - more broken teeth and/or bones. I could go on with an exhaustive list of activities that are probably prohibited these days, but none of us died or became permanently damaged because we had parents who kept a lookout for us and saved us from our worst excesses while allowing us to grow competence and resilience. I agree with every word you've written David but today's poiltburo will tut and write another directive for safety.
And there are the proponents of emotional safety in schools and unis who wield tremendous influence in ensuring that young people won't develop the resilience to cope with being offended and upset.
Yes indeed Sheryl. And of course we must not forget about 'cultural safety' which encompasses, well, it encompasses pretty much everything and anything through which the cultural victim may extort sympathy (and money of course). Government Departments which claim to be 'culturally safe' are simply wasting millions of our dollars pandering to the pathetic and woke. How anyone takes offence at simple cultural faux pas is beyond me. We used to find such amusing and when people act with the best of intentions, it is simply emotional extortion to cry foul and 'offended' at any minor oversight. Of course, we all know that 'cultural safety' really only matters for one particular culture...
Well written. You have read my mind on this matter, despite the many times I may have inadvertently banged it. When thinking about "safe" I also think about open-carry motorcycling, mountain biking and the general universe of having fun outdoors. Please let me take responsibility for my own wellbeing and expect me to be mindful others who may be affected by what I do.
Good on you, Halfling. I'm a great champion, champin' at the bit, for the Dignity of Risk.
"the category of what constitutes a hazard can be widened without logical limit" :
In the interests of "national security" ( I forbear to use capitals, lest the satire might be lost) much that should be transparent is hidden.... for your own good.
The induction of electric vehicles on a wave of guilt, for bringing climatic cataclysm in the wake of one's Toyota, is predicated on a most astonishing presumption: that we have entitlement to a steady-state climate. Without the nanny-state groundwork for the last half-century, this would get no traction.
Some risks are treated differently, by the innocent bureaucrats who are not in any conspiracy:
The very same publications which gleefully hammer our heads with the safety mantra, are held in corporate hands, in an effective monopoly. This constitutes a stupid and unnecessary risk, which we should definitely mitigate. For some strange reason, these media outlets don't focus on the very real danger of monopoly.
Thank you Halfling, yes, we are more than halfway to a cotton wool society that no longer thinks for itself, but is conditioned to do as it is told, and not ask questions. But thinking of covid, perhaps far more than halfway when not only are our own questions ignored, but politicians and bureaucrats refuse to answer questions about their own behaviour, explain their policies, tell us why certain things were done, mandates, age inclusions etc. It becomes a self-sustaining circle of irresponsibility.
And have I got it wrong but was there not a Health and Safety ban on rescue helicopter flights to save the poor victims of the White Island eruption, because it was 'unsafe'? And such flights were undoubtedly unsafe, but human lives were at risk. some of them already lost, but still there were heroic souls who were ready to sacrifice their own for others.
There are so many occasions when risk to life and limb has to be undertaken not for safety but for the sake of our common humanity.
Peter, I think the v brave helicopter pilot who ignored warnings that it would be unsafe to fly to White Island straight after the eruption (and saved at least 2 lives) was subsequently ostracised (and prosecuted?).
Just like Pike River, where all the experts said the safest time to enter a mine is just after an explosion (because it consumes all the dangerous gasses), and there people willing to go in and look for survivors.
But John Key blocked them entering and could well have blood on his hands as a consequence....
Thank you Noel, yes I thought there was an unnecessary and lamentably vindictive response from the authorities, the experts and legalists who know better than anyone else!!! It simply highlights David's contention that a particular view of safety inflates power.
"What about the children?" An open ended unarguable statement not considered by abortion.
A great statement, “A framing device that pre-empts rational analysis is useful to anyone seeking to advance a policy agenda that might not survive rational analysis.”
Brilliant analysis David. The “safety” religion is all part of denuding the populace of any sense of personal agency and trying to make us all feel dependent on, and supplicant to, the State
Safety is the acid eating away at our social and economic stability hard earned with many sacrifices by previous generations. Every use of “safety” involves spending yet more of that legacy until one day the pot will literally be empty and the lessons from the School of Hard Knocks will once again dominate the daily curriculum for most. Wait for the navel gazing and exclamations of “How could this have happened?!”
Well, this is a large topic Mr Hobbit. Wonderful piece, well crafted and extremely on point. The entire world operates on the basis that strain or hardship leads to greater strength. Bones get stronger when used, muscles at the gym, using the brain delays dementia, studying makes you smarter, immune system function etc etc. Per ardua ad astra. Fall down, you get up. Of course we should try to stay safe from the big harms, but we need the small ones and if we did not push boundaries we would still be living in a cave.
Everything in nature, everything human, works this way. Yet we have worked hard to create the softest society ever. Removed most of the bumps. Little wonder we see a generation of fickle whimps, who cry into their lattes over hurty feelings yet spare not one thought for the politically oppressed around the world. Their oft cited 'lived experience' (just writing that makes me cringe...) is more 'a lead role in a cage' and they are quick to exploit any minor challenge as if it were akin to a long stint in the gulag. Whilst we all concede there are some whose lives are genuinely hard (disabled, abused etc) the sage advice of 'harden the fuck up' would be most apposite for the rest of this marshmallow society.
I am told that "harden up" or "grow a spine" are statements that are much abhorred by the current snowflakes. The development of any sort of resilience is something nthat cannot be contemplated.
When working for an organisation that did proper hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation I learned that some precautionistas can be made to see how silly their blind approach is. When asked if everything possible should be done to help them avoid a powerful cell-damaging oxidant chemical, the answer was always an emphatic 'Yes'. To which the reply would be 'Best you stop breathing then, because it's called oxygen'. (There are many others, including being strapped into a metal box fired at high speed towards a stream of other metal boxes coming towards you... best not take the car).
Sadly, most could not see that point that life is a risk and it's a matter of degree. Like when the Greens called for a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Death is a hazard with a 100% probability. It's all about the most reasonable approach to mitigating the risk given current circumstances.
An excellent post thanks David. Modern "safety" requirements are a litany of unintended consequences. Coroners, some lawyers and the judiciary in general are among the worst offenders.
"Political tags--such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth--are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbors than the other sort."
Robert A. Heinlein
Yes, we do use names for different policies. But those 'idealists' wanting control may actually want it for its own sake rather than the good of humanity. That's pretty obvious as we look around. There are other options. If we lived on the basis of need rather than greed, quite a lot might change. And yes, comfort appeals to us all, even to the extent of denying what is plainly happening around us. As David makes clear, reality urges us to take risks, change our life styles perhaps, consider other options. Taking responsibility for the way things are takes a decision, but acting on that may help us see where we need to change as individuals. And that often changes what happens around us.
It is pretty clear that we have to recover our sense of adventure, reduce our dependance on government, and trust our own convictions. We don't have to remain curmudgeons!
The great dictator of state supervision.
"For your own safety" An arm of the nanny state.
I was triggered by the title..
Triggered by the title? How so. :-)
I might say when I first saw your remark I read it as "Tiggered by the title" and had visions of a bouncing tiger toy in the 100 acre wood
When I was growing up on the 1950s we climbed trees we weren't meant to and sometimes fell out, we made trolleys from fruit crates and careered down steep inclines and often fell out, with attendant broken teeth or bones. We rode our bikes around the farm without crash helmets and safety pads - more broken teeth and/or bones. I could go on with an exhaustive list of activities that are probably prohibited these days, but none of us died or became permanently damaged because we had parents who kept a lookout for us and saved us from our worst excesses while allowing us to grow competence and resilience. I agree with every word you've written David but today's poiltburo will tut and write another directive for safety.
And there are the proponents of emotional safety in schools and unis who wield tremendous influence in ensuring that young people won't develop the resilience to cope with being offended and upset.
Yes indeed Sheryl. And of course we must not forget about 'cultural safety' which encompasses, well, it encompasses pretty much everything and anything through which the cultural victim may extort sympathy (and money of course). Government Departments which claim to be 'culturally safe' are simply wasting millions of our dollars pandering to the pathetic and woke. How anyone takes offence at simple cultural faux pas is beyond me. We used to find such amusing and when people act with the best of intentions, it is simply emotional extortion to cry foul and 'offended' at any minor oversight. Of course, we all know that 'cultural safety' really only matters for one particular culture...
Well written. You have read my mind on this matter, despite the many times I may have inadvertently banged it. When thinking about "safe" I also think about open-carry motorcycling, mountain biking and the general universe of having fun outdoors. Please let me take responsibility for my own wellbeing and expect me to be mindful others who may be affected by what I do.
agree Brett
But we do also have ACC that backs up not only the genuine accidents, but also the idiots and totally careless risk-takers.
When ACC was introduced, we were told the world would be envious, and most likely would emulate it.
As it turns out no other country has adopted something similar.
Does that perhaps tell us it's time to review it and - perhaps - get rid of it....??
One of the things that really annoys me, is that prudent international travellers take insurance, but don't need it in kind/generous little NZ....
Good on you, Halfling. I'm a great champion, champin' at the bit, for the Dignity of Risk.
"the category of what constitutes a hazard can be widened without logical limit" :
In the interests of "national security" ( I forbear to use capitals, lest the satire might be lost) much that should be transparent is hidden.... for your own good.
The induction of electric vehicles on a wave of guilt, for bringing climatic cataclysm in the wake of one's Toyota, is predicated on a most astonishing presumption: that we have entitlement to a steady-state climate. Without the nanny-state groundwork for the last half-century, this would get no traction.
Some risks are treated differently, by the innocent bureaucrats who are not in any conspiracy:
The very same publications which gleefully hammer our heads with the safety mantra, are held in corporate hands, in an effective monopoly. This constitutes a stupid and unnecessary risk, which we should definitely mitigate. For some strange reason, these media outlets don't focus on the very real danger of monopoly.
Thank you Halfling, yes, we are more than halfway to a cotton wool society that no longer thinks for itself, but is conditioned to do as it is told, and not ask questions. But thinking of covid, perhaps far more than halfway when not only are our own questions ignored, but politicians and bureaucrats refuse to answer questions about their own behaviour, explain their policies, tell us why certain things were done, mandates, age inclusions etc. It becomes a self-sustaining circle of irresponsibility.
And have I got it wrong but was there not a Health and Safety ban on rescue helicopter flights to save the poor victims of the White Island eruption, because it was 'unsafe'? And such flights were undoubtedly unsafe, but human lives were at risk. some of them already lost, but still there were heroic souls who were ready to sacrifice their own for others.
There are so many occasions when risk to life and limb has to be undertaken not for safety but for the sake of our common humanity.
Peter, I think the v brave helicopter pilot who ignored warnings that it would be unsafe to fly to White Island straight after the eruption (and saved at least 2 lives) was subsequently ostracised (and prosecuted?).
Just like Pike River, where all the experts said the safest time to enter a mine is just after an explosion (because it consumes all the dangerous gasses), and there people willing to go in and look for survivors.
But John Key blocked them entering and could well have blood on his hands as a consequence....
Thank you Noel, yes I thought there was an unnecessary and lamentably vindictive response from the authorities, the experts and legalists who know better than anyone else!!! It simply highlights David's contention that a particular view of safety inflates power.
"What about the children?" An open ended unarguable statement not considered by abortion.
A great statement, “A framing device that pre-empts rational analysis is useful to anyone seeking to advance a policy agenda that might not survive rational analysis.”
Brilliant analysis David. The “safety” religion is all part of denuding the populace of any sense of personal agency and trying to make us all feel dependent on, and supplicant to, the State
Safety is the acid eating away at our social and economic stability hard earned with many sacrifices by previous generations. Every use of “safety” involves spending yet more of that legacy until one day the pot will literally be empty and the lessons from the School of Hard Knocks will once again dominate the daily curriculum for most. Wait for the navel gazing and exclamations of “How could this have happened?!”
"To accept risk is to accept responsibility for the outcome". Therein lies the problem
Well, this is a large topic Mr Hobbit. Wonderful piece, well crafted and extremely on point. The entire world operates on the basis that strain or hardship leads to greater strength. Bones get stronger when used, muscles at the gym, using the brain delays dementia, studying makes you smarter, immune system function etc etc. Per ardua ad astra. Fall down, you get up. Of course we should try to stay safe from the big harms, but we need the small ones and if we did not push boundaries we would still be living in a cave.
Everything in nature, everything human, works this way. Yet we have worked hard to create the softest society ever. Removed most of the bumps. Little wonder we see a generation of fickle whimps, who cry into their lattes over hurty feelings yet spare not one thought for the politically oppressed around the world. Their oft cited 'lived experience' (just writing that makes me cringe...) is more 'a lead role in a cage' and they are quick to exploit any minor challenge as if it were akin to a long stint in the gulag. Whilst we all concede there are some whose lives are genuinely hard (disabled, abused etc) the sage advice of 'harden the fuck up' would be most apposite for the rest of this marshmallow society.
I am told that "harden up" or "grow a spine" are statements that are much abhorred by the current snowflakes. The development of any sort of resilience is something nthat cannot be contemplated.
*Shuffles over... welcome to my soapbox.
Humbug to all safety Nazis.
When working for an organisation that did proper hazard identification, risk assessment and mitigation I learned that some precautionistas can be made to see how silly their blind approach is. When asked if everything possible should be done to help them avoid a powerful cell-damaging oxidant chemical, the answer was always an emphatic 'Yes'. To which the reply would be 'Best you stop breathing then, because it's called oxygen'. (There are many others, including being strapped into a metal box fired at high speed towards a stream of other metal boxes coming towards you... best not take the car).
Sadly, most could not see that point that life is a risk and it's a matter of degree. Like when the Greens called for a ban on dihydrogen monoxide. Death is a hazard with a 100% probability. It's all about the most reasonable approach to mitigating the risk given current circumstances.
An excellent post thanks David. Modern "safety" requirements are a litany of unintended consequences. Coroners, some lawyers and the judiciary in general are among the worst offenders.