This morning, I ran the numbers on traffic fatalities in the US and Norway.
The background was a Charles Krauthammer's article in the Washington Post, "A disaster with many fathers", where he insinuates that there would be fewer oil spills if the oil companies were allowed easier access to other potential oil fields, in shallower water. To me, that's like saying that there would be fewer traffic accidents if roads were better and cars were cheaper, so drivers could afford to upgrade to newer, safer models.
This hypothesis is testable. America, for example, has fantastically good roads, compared to Norway. Their fleet of cars is also much younger, thanks to the fact that cars cost next to nothing there.
Does this lead to fewer accidents? Apparently not. The US has 2,4-2,6 times more traffic related fatalities per inhabitant per year.
My first idea when I saw this number, must that it must be due to Americans driving more than Norwegians. Wouldn't better roads lead to more driving and then to more accidents? If so, that would be bad for Charles Krauthammer, since it would imply that better access to more oil fields would simply result in more drilling and more oil spills.
When I checked the numbers, it turned out that Americans do indeed drive more than Norwegians, but only enough to explain 15% of the effect.
My wife suggested that the remaining 85% difference might be due to higher fines and stricter law enforcement in Norway. It's true that the fines for speeding are higher here, but the enforcement is actually laxer: In Norway I see policemen doing speed checks once or twice a year, and in America I see them several times a day when I'm doing long road trips.
My conclusion is that the remaining 85% of the difference must be due to the fact that Americn drivers (just like Norwegians) compensate for better roads and cars by adapting their driving style to the perceived level of risk they're comfortable with, and that Americans are collectively less risk-averse than Norwegians.
There's no reason that Americans in general would behave more responsibly in boardrooms than behind steering-wheels. What we really, really need to do, is to create systems of governance in the widest sense, that keep the risktakers out of positions where we can't afford to have them. Like in certain parts of the banking system, or behind automatic weapons. We need to limit their freedom, in order to preserve our own opportunities.
Why aren't Americans more risk-averse? Is it because America is populated by the descendants of people who preferred the risk of the great unknown, to the certainty of what they had at home? If so, it's strange to see how strong the effect is, and just how Kraut-headed (sorry, but that pun was irresistible) Charles Krauthammer is in his belief.
Your analogy is misplaced regarding Krauthammer's statement (a more apt analogy would be saying that there would be fewer transportation accidents if people were allowed to drive cars on roadways that were less than 100 feet off the ground, instead of only in the upper stratosphere).
SvarSlettThere are many factors that contribute to frequency of traffic accidents: population density, driving education requirements, education level of the driving public, incidence of (and laws and enforcement against) driving intoxicated, hazardous road conditions, auto safety, etc. So I don't think it's as easily tested a hypothesis as you assert. But in any case, it would have nothing to do with what Krauthammer is talking about. I know you like drawing analogies, but while analogies can be used to help someone understand a situation, it is not very useful to try to test the truth of a proposition by making an analogy and then testing the analogy. The only usefulness of such a technique is for politicians who are trying to persuade or confuse masses of people who are not well educated in critical thinking.
Of course, if you're really talking about traffic safety here, all well and good, although I think there is little justification for your conclusion (that 85% of the difference has to do with the two factors you've highlighted). In fact, one of your assumptions, that Americans are less risk averse than Norwegians, is quite suspect in my mind, as is any assertion that basic human nature differs depending on culture, national origin, or other demographic grouping (race, religion, etc.) Not that there may not be some elements of truth in such comparisons and contrasts, but my experience is that basic human nature is much the same throughout humanity, and I would require the most rigorous scientific testing of any hypothesis to the contrary.
Incidentally, based on the second sentence in your commentary, it seems you have misread Krauthammer. He made no insinuation whatsoever as to the relative frequency of oil spills (except that accidents are inevitable no matter where we drill), only regarding where he would be better (or worse) to have them.
SvarSlettWhat he said was that we are drilling in 5000 feet of water because environmental concerns have severely limited drilling on land and in shallow waters, and that the consequences of a catastrophic oil spill at such great depths are likely to be much worse than a catastrophic oil spill on land or in shallow water.