Whose Life Is It Anyway?
We now know that the 5 adventurers who went underneath the Atlantic Ocean’s surface to explore the Titanic have died. By about Tuesday, I had figured they were dead but I held out hope.
Unfortunately, various people have tweeted nasty comments and gone after OceanGate’s CEO Stockton Rush (who is one of the 5 dead) for taking excessive risk.
One of the worst is someone named Alexandre Erin, who said.
Here’s a reason I’m a pro-mockery of the OceanGate fiasco: that whole “regulations stifle innovation” thing that crops up in their PR to present the whole “untested and unlicensed” thing as a feature rather than a bug: people who want us eating heavy metals for breakfast say that.
So she mocks them because they use an argument that “people who want us eating heavy metals for breakfast” use. I can’t vouch for or against her claim; I don’t know anyone who wants me eating heavy metals for breakfast; maybe that’s because I travel in a smaller circle than she does.
But even if there are such people, that doesn’t mean that everyone who argues for using something that is “untested and unlicensed” is wrong. Every innovation was, at some point, unlicensed and untested.
Indeed, in this case, they were testing it. Do I think it would have been better to send Titan down a number of times before having people in it? Yes. But that reflects my preferences about risk; I’m quite cautious and won’t even try scuba diving. But different people have different preferences for risk.
Consider people who try to climb K2, which is much more dangerous than Mount Everest. As of March 2019, there were 355 ascents of K2—and 82 deaths. So deaths as a percent of summits were 23 percent. Now that’s risky.
Would Erin mock those people too? There is one major difference between the two activities. We are unlikely to get much innovation out of people climbing K2, although you never know. We have a much higher chance of getting valuable innovation out of people doing what OceanGate is doing.
I do think that, as Christian Britschgi of Reason pointed out, we taxpayers should not be on the hook for the resources put into tracking Titan with the goal of rescuing the occupants. I would bet that the various operations have already cost millions of dollars. You might argue that much of this was good training for other things that taxpayers should pay for. You might. But I’m skeptical.
READER COMMENTS
Jose Pablo
Jun 23 2023 at 11:40am
The Titan thing is the company and the families of the 5 dead people business. And nobody else’s
we taxpayers should not be on the hook for the resources put into tracking Titan
That’s interesting, giving the profile of the drown people, they very likely have already paid for that “resources” many times over
We are all “taxpayers”, but some of us are much more “taxpayers” than others.
I will ask everyone to calculate (even back of the envelope kind of thing) his/her “net taxpayer status”, what they pay in taxes minus what they get for free (so to speak) from the government. After that, but not before, with that balance in mind, I will ask them to remade the arguments that start with “we taxpayers …”
David Henderson
Jun 23 2023 at 12:04pm
Good point.
robc
Jun 23 2023 at 12:10pm
While everyone has to place the value they receive from the government themselves, it is quite possible it is negative in total, which would make almost everyone part of “we” (if they value it the same).
David Henderson
Jun 23 2023 at 12:38pm
Good point also.
Jose Pablo
Jun 23 2023 at 2:19pm
And taxpayers are, in any case, very used to “fund” risky behavior.
The unprotected sex that results in single motherhood is, no doubt, a risky behavior.
And so it is not getting your high school diploma
And in a country with an unemployment rate below 4%, so it is not having a full-time job.
Why should taxpayer fund these risky behaviors but no others?
Who should decide which risky behaviors should be rewarded and which ones should merit a “reimbursement” to the state?
Andrew_FL
Jun 23 2023 at 1:18pm
Mockery is certainly not an appropriate response. Shock and dismay would be more appropriate. However it does seem that there was gross negligence here, arguably criminal gross negligence.
Henri Hein
Jun 23 2023 at 2:27pm
To steelman the argument for government rescue operations, isn’t there a case to be made for risk-pooling response operations for extraordinary events like that? As you say, we want to encourage innovation. The risks for new innovations are unknown, sometimes even by the inventors themselves. Leaving the inventors to fund their own responses to accidents would (potentially) slow down innovation. Doing it through private insurance could be prohibitively expensive for many of them.
Max Molden
Jun 26 2023 at 5:42am
Be careful to distinguish risk-pooling as such from governmental risk-pooling!
There may be a strong case to pool risks (or rather create manageable risk by pooling uncertainty), just as there have been friendly societies that were voluntary associations to insure people against disastrous events. But these are voluntary associations, distinguished from governmental insurance schemes.
It may be possible to stimulate more innovation by having the government insure inventors, pay for costly rescue operations etc. So, it may well be that if the government does not do this, there is less innovation. But innovation isn’t a free lunch. There is a cost paid by the citizens whom the government coerces to pay their taxes to support more innovation by “risk-pooling”. So, the question is: even if the government could accelerate innovation, is it legitimate for it to do this, as it must impose costs on the citizens to accelerate innovation?
Monte
Jun 23 2023 at 3:00pm
First, I wish to offer my condolences to the families, friends, and colleagues of the those lost in this terrible tragedy. We can best honor their memory by recognizing their extraordinary courage and the sacrifice each made in attempting to advance the science of deep-sea exploration, earth’s final frontier.
As H. G. Wells said, human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe. In the final analysis, can we say this was any worse a miscalculation on the part of OceanGate than that of Rockwell International and NASA in designing, constructing, and launching the ill-fated Challenger space shuttle? Wasn’t it subjected to even more stringent regulations and requirements than the Titan? Calculated risks are an inevitable part of any mission. The future belongs to the risk-takers.
robc
Jun 23 2023 at 4:34pm
The initial risk assessment for the Space Shuttle put a total loss at about 1 in 50 flights. That ended being pretty much in the ballpark (2 out of 135). That would have been super good for something like Apollo, but wasn’t acceptable for the space shuttle. So did they make it safer? No, they had them reassess and come up with a “better” number.
Monte
Jun 23 2023 at 5:04pm
Wasn’t the risk assessment for submersibles at this depth something like 1 in 500 fails?
steve
Jun 23 2023 at 4:27pm
We have no idea if these people actually paid much in taxes or were good at avoiding paying taxes, so that’s a red herring. I think the issues are: did the people on board understand the risks, was there good reason to believe risks were being ignored or minimized, and why do we pay to rescue these people? The last is probably easiest to resolve if we just charge people for the rescue attempts. This has actually been done for some mountain rescues. If the people on board truly understood the risks then I am OK with what they did and there is no grounds for any actions against the company. If it was misrepresented then the company should face at least a civil action.
Got some input from some materials science people. Their consensus was that there were a lot fo good reasons to believe that the materials chosen would not respond well to compression. It would have been wise to seek outside expertise. It’s too easy to develop groupthink in an insulated/isolated group.
Steve
Monte
Jun 23 2023 at 4:51pm
https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65977432.amp
john hare
Jun 23 2023 at 5:28pm
I am into spaceflight and would prefer that the people willing to take risks be allowed to take them. I would also prefer that the government not be on the hook for subsidizing spaceflight beyond what is directly in the national interest. The risks and losses of either the submersible or manned spacecraft are not mitigated by politically charged regulation.
I think riding fast motorcycles without safety gear is nuts, and also none of my business.
Jose Pablo
Jun 23 2023 at 6:41pm
If anybody thinks that risk-taking should be financially supported, they are free to found an NGO that does precisely that: financially supporting risk taking (for ocean investigation or for advancing our knowledge on the reproductive behavior of the african armoured ground cricket (Acanthoplus discoidalis) .
Or they can found a for-profit organization and devise a scheme that allows them to financially benefit from the supposed achievements down the road of this risk-taking.
If anybody believes that people with bad luck should be protected from the consequences of their risky behavior (unprotected sex, not finishing high schools, doing drugs, etc…) they are free to found a NGO that delivers help to this unlucky people and, if they enjoy doing so, boasting in all the virtue signaling associated with this behavior
I don’t see any reason for being myself forced to participate in any of those “efforts” if I don’t want to.
That should be pretty simple and pretty straightforward.
David Seltzer
Jun 23 2023 at 6:41pm
Senator John McCain called mixed martial arts “human cockfighting.” Given his druthers McCain may have wanted to destroy the sport. He regarded MMA as barbaric, as fighters use choke-holds and kicks, and engage in ground and pound. McCain declared, “To hit a man when he’s down is un-American.” You know the story. These fighters understand the risks and train accordingly. As for ground and pound, did Senator McCain not see a referee jump in to stop the beating to which an incapacitated fighter was exposed? I trained with MMA fighters until I was 50. When I sustained a partially detached retina, I ended my training and began coaching fighters.
David Henderson
Jun 23 2023 at 8:01pm
You write:
As I recall, in the mid-1960s, Navy pilot John McCain hit a whole bunch of men, women, and children when they were down,
Jim Glass
Jun 24 2023 at 2:47am
we taxpayers should not be on the hook for the resources put into tracking Titan with the goal of rescuing the occupants
In my youth I used to do shark dives without a cage in the Caribbean, among meat-eaters, hammerheads and tigers. We’d even feed them with speared fish, get them into a little frenzy. They’d never show any worrisome interest in a human – as long as you let go of the fish. So I’m OK with personal risk. (Or was then.)
But I’m also cheap. So I agree with you, and also don’t want to be on the hook for search and rescue missions for airliners that crash in the ocean or forest or mountains or wherever else they shouldn’t crash …. or for paying to control wild fires that might burn through towns in California … or for developing a vaccine for a pandemic when I don’t need it because I’m in the low risk group … or for ambulance service that goes to car crashes on the highways … or for a fire department to save dummies who burn down their houses … or for the police who spend so much money every time some stupid kid gets kidnapped for ransom, ‘or else’…
How do any of them deserve public money any more than the Titaners? Just let everyone die. It will reduce the carbon footprint of humanity and save 6 cents off my taxes.
~~~~
But even more seriously, you’re all missing the real offenders here — the military-media complex. The navy knew that sub imploded the minute it happened. (Probably a lot of others did too.) That was a 100+ pounds of TNT bang, their sonar that can detect a whale fart at 500 miles and tell the kind of whale, dang well heard it — and now they’ve admitted they did. But they and the Coast Guard didn’t tell anyone for four days. And who benefitted $$$-wise from that? CNN and every media outlet and clickbait web service and YouTube channel that milked it relentlessly. Court martial the admiral in charge and make the vampire parasite media pay.
Or make a virtue of it, and make the media pay for all future publicized rescues.
Monte
Jun 24 2023 at 10:31am
There are conflicting accounts as to whether or not whales fart. But the most authoritative source I’ve been able to find so far indicates that they do not:
James Mead, Curator Emeritus of Marine Mammals at the Smithsonian Institution
Jon Murphy
Jun 25 2023 at 8:51am
That is probably not the case. The thing with noises in the water is they can be carried over very long distances and can be difficult to identify. The Navy probably suspected there was an implosion, but it’s quite unlikely that they knew it was one or that their rescue efforts would be in vain. Conditional on it being appropriate for the Coast Guard and Navy to respond to conduct Search and Rescue operations at sea, I think its appropriate for them to have sent units even given the noise.
Comments are closed.