← Back to context

Comment by tomjen3

6 hours ago

It certainly involved a lot of skill and expense, but how many more lives could be saved if the same money had been spent on improved traffic safety or NHS in general?

Probably not that many. You underestimate how expensive either of those things are.

We have obligations to provide services like this to the people living in our overseas territories, and you won’t find many people who’ll oppose that.

This is a classic. It occurs in two forms:

Wow, logistics to <remote place> are very expensive! We could spend that money better in the cities!

Wow, logistics in <city> is expensive! We could spend that money better in rural areas!

I read about a new road tunnel in London last year, a ten-digit price tag for about 1km of road IIRC. I'm 100% sure some people suggested that that money could have been better spent in rural areas.

  • We shouldn't be wasting a penny on colonies, this isn't the age of Napoleon anymore, get the English out of any country that isn't England.

    • The one thing you seem to be missing in your anticolonialist tirades is the fact that Tristan was uninhabited. It’s not like native peoples were displaced by the British colonists, right?

      6 replies →

People respond to inspiring stories that show what is possible. Inevitably that means choices that might not match what a perfect allocation looks like.

Quiet, bland execution in government will get you voted out. Technocrats tend to come in after corruption, but they don’t usually last.

It's a small price to pay to keep political control. Probably not the entire motivation here, but generally countries like keeping their remote islands and settlements lived in because it represents a claim of the land by proxy.

True, but this is military expenditure. So would you rather they spend this on an exercise or on actually saving people?