|
J.D.,
Fixed it.
Again, I think it would depend on the benefits offered too. Automobiles are a good example because they don't cause accidents by design but a variety of factors do.
I have a feeling that most Americans might vote No unless it was something they were in control of. That is to say, that if it was a hover craft and they got to fly it, they'd be willing to put up with the deaths because they would feel like they were in control.
When people are not in control, they actually take more notice of the deaths that is caused by a thing and focus on the fact that a convenience brings about unintended death rather than focusing on all the other things it brings.
If you only factored in the deaths that a convenience brought, you would never use something like that. Think, however, of the quality of life improvements that roads and quick transportation has brought. If you need a reminder of that then try visiting Bangladesh right now. We're actually in the middle of figuring out how we're going to help them if the government asks for help. Getting medicine or doctors to some places is going to be hard because of all the unimproved roads they have.
Anyway, I'd have to know what this thing was. If it was a transporter and you had a 1% chance of being completely scrambled by it even though you got across the world in 10 minutes then it wouldn't be a very popular means of mass transit but, in emergencies, you'd always take the risk because if you could get an accident victim from the scene of an accident to an ER in an instant you would always take the chance of using the transporter because you could save his life by getting him on the operating table within the "golden hour".
Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.
|