Sometimes risk mitigation works. It doesn’t feel that way because when risk mitigation works, nothing happens. But not all risks lead to catastrophe, as long as people tasked with mitigating those risks keep their eyes on the goal. For example, it’s possible that the Y2K computer bug actually
I remember Y2K all too well, being tangentially involved in upgrading legacy systems back in the day. I have to agree with your entire post and your observation about the wane and failure of public health protections for COVID-19, mainly through a lack of resolve, is particularly on point.
Good post. Climate change is much more than a problem. It's the system itself and not a problem in the system. People need to be made aware about it. Not just told. A virus is bad. Yes people know that. But climate change is what? Governments will need to make people understand what it means and how dangerous it is.
The BeyondHarm SubStack blog post, "Climate, confidence, and cost", touches on some of the issues you bring. Protection systems, invoked through liability costs or regulation, necessarily have the objective to produce no data. On the other hand, the state of knowledge may or may not support future scenarios. In the case of climate change, the precautionary principle has been applied as a reasonable response to the risk. On the other hand, engineering efficacious solutions is the subject of risk management -- such solutions are not readily at hand but should be approached deliberately, not franticly.
I remember Y2K all too well, being tangentially involved in upgrading legacy systems back in the day. I have to agree with your entire post and your observation about the wane and failure of public health protections for COVID-19, mainly through a lack of resolve, is particularly on point.
Good post. Climate change is much more than a problem. It's the system itself and not a problem in the system. People need to be made aware about it. Not just told. A virus is bad. Yes people know that. But climate change is what? Governments will need to make people understand what it means and how dangerous it is.
Nevertheless, an encouraging post.
Also known as <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preparedness_paradox>
The BeyondHarm SubStack blog post, "Climate, confidence, and cost", touches on some of the issues you bring. Protection systems, invoked through liability costs or regulation, necessarily have the objective to produce no data. On the other hand, the state of knowledge may or may not support future scenarios. In the case of climate change, the precautionary principle has been applied as a reasonable response to the risk. On the other hand, engineering efficacious solutions is the subject of risk management -- such solutions are not readily at hand but should be approached deliberately, not franticly.
Overreaction is sometimes worse than no reaction at all.
We've seen what mass hysteria can do to us with covid.