45
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
45 points (89.5% liked)
World News
32287 readers
1191 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
The silver lining here is that the world has gained an extremely compelling argument for regulations.
I'm not sure how much you can regulate a company that fires the people telling them it's an unsafe design.
Independent safety inspections and certification of designs. You don’t pass, you don’t sail.
The law can't be fired, government inspectors can't be fired.
Not to be callous, but why? We have four people here who willingly signed up for this knowing what the potential consequences could be and one who just threw caution to the wind as far as safety was concerned. I am sure more people have died on the roads while I was typing this. Besides, they were in international waters where according to all the news stories I read nothing you could pass would apply. I feel like this should just be a cautionary tale for others and thats as far as it needs to go. Oh, and let what's left of the company pay back the people who went out searching, assuming there are any funds left. I mean they obviously spent money on nothing but the best equipment.
I don't know what the right level of risk is, but I do agree that if you're engaging in extreme tourism, you have to understand that there's going to be a level of risk associated with it. You want to visit Antarctica, you're going to inevitably be exposed to more risk than if you visit the park down the road. Same thing with space travel. Same thing with deep undersea stuff.
This wasn't a normal submarine, though. It was a plastic death tube that was totally uncertified and bound to fail eventually.
You could argue buyer beware, but you could argue this is negligent and the tourists should be protected from their own stupidity too.
Sure, and if it's in your own personal risk tolerance, you should be well within your rights to do so.
The kind of reactionary hand wringing on this issue is telling about how conservative the world has become.
Risk conservative, maybe. Political conservatism is usually gung-ho about this sort of thing.
I see the logic of that, but then again people can be real idiots when it comes to things they haven't been trained about (ask anyone that interacts with the general public for work). I also see the logic in things like mandating seatbelts. Especially if you have a situation where medical treatment will be provided at great public expense for the outcome of whatever stupid decision.
Before someone gets mad at me, I have no actual opinion here.
I think it becomes a question of what well back up and 'insure' as a society. Because we're willing to back people up and insure against the risk of driving in a vehicle, we require certain safety standards, levels of training, etc.
I think people should and need to be able to make all the stupidest decisions they can possibly make. I also don't think it's society's role to absorb that risk. I don't think a major search and rescue operation should have been undertaken for people doing something that was incredibly risky and dangerous. It's an edge that should stay sharp, and have real consequences. But I also strongly believe we shouldn't be regulating people's behavior to not also take that risk. That's their business and the whole point of living in a liberal society. As a society we get to decide which corners to pad and which edges to soften. I'd like to see us padding the corners and reduce the risk for an immigrants voyage on an over packed boat to try and better themselt rather than some dipshit billionaires obviously stupid hobby.
I think both of them having the right to take that risk is a fundamental human right. But we as a society get to decide which risks well offer some cushion to.
If this was international waters maybe there are no regulations.
The company is registered in the US. US law can therefore apply. In fact USA claims jurisdiction where it's very shady to do so (for example just for payments made in USD)
Wait what? So a guy in Zimbabwe trades a broom for some USD and the US government feels they have jurisdiction?
That's what needs to change. If there was enough support internationally, the UN could facilitate a treaty being signed between nations with uniform regulations on submersibles. Then it wouldn't matter if it was international waters.
a completely silly use of literally everyone's time and money, as was the search.
If billionaires want to do life threatening tourism, then let them, but there should be no accommodations for the consequences.
And people who are not signatories?
That's the idea, I think. Of all the submarines that could reach that depth it was the only one with no certification.