Comment by wavepruner | Hacker News Reader

Comment by wavepruner | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

This "who should be saved" question is so silly to me.

In reality, the person that gets saved is always the person that the savers want to save. From situation to situation there are a huge number of variables affecting what the savers' desire is. These situations are often unrelated to a person's disability status, and usually have a lot more to do with how much the saver likes the savee.

I'm physically disabled, and some big determining factors as to whether I will be helped or not are: how much I am liked by that person, if I can satisfy their religious or political ideology, if I can give them a way to help me that brings meaning to their lives, and if they can make themselves look like a good person to their peers.

The question is “who should be saved”, not “who will be saved”. It’s normative.

The point of the exercise is to try to figure out which variables are most valued in theory.

We can talk about how things should and shouldn't be as long as we want, but that will not change human behavior.

When you're disabled you must come to terms with this reality and accept it quickly. You cannot waste time with theory. Theory will lead to your death. You must be practical and efficient to survive.

Sure. But what good is changing human behavior if we're not changing it in the way it should be?

You can't just dismiss theory.

I don't think you can change human behavior.

But you can accept it and design systems with that in mind.

So I guess I do like theory. But I think having conversations about how to force humans to behave differently is a waste of precious resources.

Human nature is to help disabled people when there is a surplus of resources, and to not help when there's not enough. So I think talking about what should happen during times of scarcity is not a good use of resources, because disabled people will always be abandoned when the resources do not exist to care for them. Nothing can change that.

Better to focus on building systems that reduce the severity and duration of bad times so they are short lived and prosperous times are longer lived.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com