Stephen Farrow wrote:
: There is no such thing as complete safety. You could be hit by a car
: crossing the road this afternoon. The logical extension of your
: behaviour would be to stop interacting with the world completely. Of
: course, in your case, since you're apparently so scared of an event that
: may never happen and will probably never affect you even if it does, it
: may not be any bad thing if you stop interacting with the rest of the
: world. No bad thing for the rest of the world, I mean. You'd definitely
: lose out.
The problem with your thinking is "logical extension", i.e.,
extrapolating to the extreme. The question is not complete safety.
My neighborhood and city are not completely safe, but that is no
reason to move into Bronx or vacation in Beirut. Also no reason to
stop interacting with the world.
The point is, we cannot live everywhere or vacation everywhere
and a choice must be made, so we make it based on whatever
seems important to us. I do realize that respect that people live
in Bronx and visit Beirut for their own reasons. Others, including
us, decided differently.
People who buy insurance against improbable disasters, and
companies that do so, can also be said to "lose out" if their worst
fears don't materialize, but IMHO that is a wrong way of looking
at things. They got peace of mind even when nothing happened. |