Hacker News Reader

Comment by esotericn | Hacker News Reader

I'm thinking of a "bad health simulator" that starts at age 50 after a lifetime of eating a terrible diet. Obviously there will be no good choices, everything will be limited.

It's not an interesting "simulation" because it's effectively just stating that you can run your life into a corner if you don't pay attention.

View on HN

I see this attitude a lot when this type of discussion comes up. People seem to focus a lot on the idea that if you "run your life into the corner" then it automatically becomes acceptable that you're stuck with that lot in life or are somehow deserving of all of the consequences. I'm not arguing against responsibility for your choices, but mental health, upbringing, addiction and so much more play huge factors in determining lifestyle and outcome. Regardless, is it in society's best interest to attempt to uplift those in need and help them become more productive members for the greater good? I think so.

I don't mean to put words in your mouth or assume what attitudes lie behind your personal thinking, I'm just reflecting on my own thoughts about this.

I don't think that "acceptable/unacceptable" is a sensible way of thinking about it; it's just axiomatic that there are some irreversible situations that cannot easily be gotten out of - time moves forwards, not back.

We might be able to move the bar, and that might be a good idea (welfare programs, etc), but that's all we can do, and there is clearly a point beyond which trying to rescue people is throwing good money after bad.

There is no way of preventing a human from damaging themselves in the general case (whether that damage be intentional or unintentional; I'm not moralizing here.).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com