> human life > profits

We shouldn't have cars then, or motorcycles. We definitely shouldn't have horse riding schools - horse riding is 20x more dangerous than riding a motorcycle, and the only reason you start a business offering it is to profit, thus you're profiting off human death.

Right?

It seems like it matters that the people riding horses and motorcycles are choosing to do that. No one chooses to have a radioactive cloud come kill them.

Planes are a risk even if you are not inside one. If they have an accident they can crash in your home. Cars actually can crash in your home or run over you while you are in the sidewalk.

A dam can break and flood a whole city. A coal electric plant produce soot and other forms of contamination. (Even radioactive contamination https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/coal-ash-is-more-... )

And it should be up to people whether they are exposed to those things or not, which to a degree it is but obviously could be more so.

Modern life is an incredible testament to the power of the profit motive. It is a supremely ironic outcome but prioritising profits is generally more effective at promoting human life than directly prioritising lives.

And people can't just choose not to face any risk. We can't possibly generate enough resources in terms of food and goods for people to live risk-free lives. Since they are going to face risk anyway, there is good reason to make sure they are facing profitable risks. It is much better to be facing a insignificant risks from nuclear power than the substantial risks of expensive electricity.

That ignores the massive regulatory frameworks in place around the world as well as the phenomenon of externalities and assumes a world without them.

> And people can't just choose not to face any risk

People should never be forced to face risk was my point, not that all risk is avoidable.

That's one of my litmus tests it's one thing if people sign up for a risk, another when it's being imposed on them.

I see you arguing that necessary risks are a society wide decision. Which I agree with. Which means arguing from that point is fair. Someone that argues otherwise I have no idea what to say about that.

I can't choose to not be affected by the industrial complex required to manufacture and maintain planes and vehicles. We all breath toxic air and eat contaminated food. Doesn't matter if you only eat vegetables, or meat, or fish.

The comment you are responding to didn't express indifference to "indigenous lives", but attributed it to others. Attacking them as though they said people shouldn't care about them seems weird and inappropriate to me. They clearly implied people should, but may not.

Thank you. Yes, that was my point.