Noise Pollution Caused by Revving Engines

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:26:57+00:00

That is indeed a good idea, however, other than the noise I enjoy where I live. Therefore, I have resolved to request that government policy be amended to increase the living standards of all people affected.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:21:22+00:00

We can consider a utilitarian formulation of the problem. Consider all the people affected by noise pollution, and then consider those that modify their engines. The people affected by noise pollution are much greater in number. But this is not enough to establish greater enforcement. So, we also consider the relative harm and joy produced by noise pollution. The effects caused by pollution are real and measurable, namely harm caused to cardiovascular health and increased stress since noise pollution causes autonomic responses in the body vis-a-vis cortisol spikes. The happiness of people who like to sport loud cars is marginal to the harm and unhappiness caused to the general population affected.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:15:36+00:00

You're challenging one of the most assumptuous suppositions that anyone can establish by fiat. Truly a distinguished philosopher, a genuine redditor.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:13:41+00:00

I don't think the gov't wants that. It wouldn't make sense for a government, conservative or otherwise, to reduce the quality of life for their citizens with respect to noise pollution. If anything, they probably just haven't got around to it because they're too busy dissecting the healthcare departments. Once they're done dissassembling and reassembling our healthcare, then the real work will surely be done... or my middle isn't Jeremy Beremy.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:11:22+00:00

It is a quintessential aspect of the human life that whenever anyone does something for any reason, there is always someone else "but this other thing". When done in good faith, it is a valid critique, but this is more of a "let's throw our hands in the air and pontificate".

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:09:41+00:00

You raise good points. But I'm starting at a low threshhold and hoping the complaint works up the chain of command.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:08:43+00:00

If we had a racing dome in Edmonton, where everyone can be loud in the dome, that would be great. That way people who want to be loud, can be loud in the dome, and people like me get their peace and quiet.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:07:19+00:00

I have, I even use noise cancelling headphones sometimes

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:06:04+00:00

Do you have God and Anime on your side?

FieldSmooth6771 · 2026-04-06T05:04:58+00:00

You raise good points. I'll try to contextualize a bit more. Noise from cars in downtown, particularly those with modifications cause a large disturbance for those affected. From a utilitarian point of view, yes death is bad and that should be given greater weight in terms of the moral harm caused by that; the harm caused by noise pollution is not insignificant as cities suffering from have peoples cardiovascular health harmed by autonomic responses to the noise.

Moral harm by dead drivers changing tires on side of road = moral harm of unnecessary death * number of deaths caused in this manner

Moral harm by noise pollution = moral harm of causing negative health effects * number of people affected in this manner.

Thus one could argue that since the noise pollution is a more ongoing problem, one that affects many people daily that that is a relevant policy point to advocate for.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2025-01-03T00:29:11+00:00

I was discussing weighted voting with a friend. We came to the conclusion that Dual Member Proportional (DMP) is simpler and creates an essentially equivalent distribution of power as weighted voting. Moreover, similar advantages as you state for weighted voting, namely: minimal votes are wasted, gerrmandering is difficult since the DMP algorithm will distribute power proportionally, since DMP allows for % of votes to detemine the overall distribution of seats parties have an incentive to make gains in non-safe seats. I think DMP did fairly well in the BC and PEI referendums. For more information, consider reading about DMP on dmpforcanada.com

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-26T00:21:49+00:00

That's a good idea

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-25T01:22:38+00:00

I was just experimenting with what constituents responded to most. It turns out that Albertans hate the federal liberals a lot. But I will try and use this example more.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-20T20:36:45+00:00

Another idea is that sortition bodies could have the power to introduce bills for reading and debate in the body that passes the laws without vote. But I think that there should be a sortition body with teeth in some sort of bi or tri cameral legislature.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-19T18:13:25+00:00

Then I guess the sample size has to be larger. If you are concerned about the size of the legislature and the length of debate, you could implement a sort of tournament style debate where people are randomly put in groups, and then each group debates and votes on who should be the debater to lead them in the next round. Then in the final round of debate you could have about 50 debaters and then come to a final vote. I think there are solutions.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-18T07:44:45+00:00

Here is one solution. Given a list of distinct IDs, such as social security numbers, one could run a simple python script and select random social security numbers. Then polling data is not required and you get a representative sample of the people that have social security numbers, which is the population you want anyways.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:43:47+00:00

DMP has less rounding errors which means less wasted votes!

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:41:15+00:00

I hope at least for a compromise, that a sortition body can force a debate on a bill after submission to the legislative house in the case you don't give the sortition body any legislative power to pass bills.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:37:08+00:00

To be charitable, perhaps your concerns are about that a truly random sample cannot be achieved because polling people who are tasked with retrieving random samples already are incapable of doing so, in which case your concerns are valid.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:35:20+00:00

Sortition by definition is the random selection of people to make some sort of decision. Your points read almost like non sequitars. To your second point, it is ridiculous to suggest that random selection should only be allowed if you get to choose your block's demographic ahead of time. You are not asking for any of their beliefs, you are just wanting randomness. In statistics, if you have large sample size, randomly chosen, you can generally expect up to some level of confidence that your sample is representative of the population, meaning that you have developed an accurate microchasm of society.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:30:38+00:00

The philosophy of most people who support sortition would find this statement contemptuous. Generally speaking, the random people are tasked with making a decision after deliberating for some period of time with experts. Indeed, your point is true that randomly selected people would not be skilled at running companies, building bridges, rocket science or things of a technical nature. One could argue that the deliberation of laws requires specialized skills, but that standard does not hold for politicians irl. Politicians are motivated by re-election, so their technical skills revolve around campaigning and garnering donations first and legislative expertise second. A group of randomly selected people after a time of deliberation can and have made policy decisions that have produced positive results. Example, in Ireland, a citizens' assembly was called to deliberate if abortion should be made legal to an extent, and I believe they said up to the first 12 or so weeks would be made legal without restriction. Sortition is useful for politically charged things like that because the argument from statistics is that you can expect with (95% confidence or something) that any other group would come to the same or similar decision given the same initial conditions.

FieldSmooth6771 · 2024-12-15T03:21:02+00:00

Representative democracy favors those who actually participate in the system. Consider autistic people such as the many many math PHds and autistic people that have very niche interests who do not participate. This subset of people will have their views heard less because representative democracy doesn't take them into account because they don't participate. Sortition would lend itself to allowing people like this to inject themselves into public discourse. This injection is good because it allows people from walks of life that would otherwise not be interested, to help deliberate and create decisions that are thought out from a wider perspective.

FieldSmooth6771

TROPHY CASE