18 Comments

Reading about the Baltimore bridge disaster, I found myself very comforted to learn how quickly the sailors and bridge workers responded to stop traffic and keep the disaster from being even worse. I do think the world is mostly peopled by “Petrovs” — and that’s why we can live in this precarious sugar castle with only *occasional* disasters. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Expand full comment
author

Precisely! They're not isolated heroes. Heroism seems an option available to many, if not most, as situations unfold.

Expand full comment
Apr 2Liked by Rohit Krishnan

There are major issues with the "billion dollar disaster" graph. See Roger Pielke analyses on The Honest Broker. In brief, damage is more expensive because we are wealthier. The physical impact (including on lives lost) is quite different.

Expand full comment
Apr 2Liked by Rohit Krishnan

Imagine how powerful humanity could be if we could get even 2% of the population interested in fine-grained truth like this!

Expand full comment
author

Agreed. Hence the distinction re lives lost Vs emotional valence, and as I write the latter might be what's driving the feeling of doom.

Expand full comment
Apr 2Liked by Rohit Krishnan

Very well said. I have a version of this I call the Free Rider theory of civilization. https://x.com/flantz/status/1775259023455240475?s=46&t=hUkz4VIFfbawd0Y-Rca3Kg

Expand full comment
author

Beautiful

Expand full comment

If you write enough articles, you can be sure some will strike gold. But I will give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute the quality of this one to proficiency :)

Expand full comment
author

Thank you :-)

Expand full comment

"We do know how to distinguish between floods happening in India against a ship destroying a bridge in Baltimore."

Therein lies the rub. It doesn't matter that we *can* distinguish between them, because the problem isn't a conscious one. The subconscious interacts with the never ending stream of stress-inducing rubbernecking by jacking up anxiety, urges to isolate, and other unhealthy responses.

Expand full comment

"The people have sharp eyes”. Mao was always pithy.

Expand full comment
Apr 2Liked by Rohit Krishnan

Had to read this very quickly so I'm just writing thank you for this extensive analysis, not to comment on it.

Expand full comment
author

My absolute pleasure

Expand full comment

> The way to solve this isn’t to just have a single silver bullet to create trust, but to have a large number of shots on goal to make even the unlikely of a higher statistical likelihood.

What if it was possible to develop a means to reliably detect when powerful people are engaged in wrongdoing or deceit (regardless of intent)? That would be a pretty powerful bullet, since most problems originate with a small number of super powerful people, politicians and experts being the most common.

Expand full comment
author

How would we do that?

Expand full comment

You can ask humans questions in a very particular way, and then analyze their responses, in very particular ways.

And no, I'm not talking journalism lol

Expand full comment

Are you to ask all the humans?

Expand full comment
Apr 3Liked by Rohit Krishnan

No, that is impossible. However, if one asks an adequately large sample size (which I have blown by loooooong ago) and finds little variance including among genuinely intelligent people, *especially when they are literally experts in relevant fields*, it's "a fair bet" that one is onto something.

Expand full comment