Should we forsake certain tradition for the sake of safety?

[Bluelight-R006]

I’ve recently come up with the idea for this topic.

Recently, as you may have heard: The Kyoto Animation’s studio was burnt down, and 33 people [confirmed] died. According to this tweet (when translated), says that the fire spread across the building easily because of the wood, and spiral staircase inside the building.

Another scenario is the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which led fires to start in wooden homes, close next to each other. Thus allowing the fire to easily spread to other houses. And because of unwanted road blockades (e.g. debris), the firefighters couldn’t reach the fire to extinguish it. Thus providing much more inconvenience to the affected people.

My point is: Certain traditions—in this case, the tradition to build buildings out of wood—may not be suited to help people. They are not fireproof, for example, and they get people into harm’s way.

Thus, should we still practice certain traditions? Or re-evaluate what we do and start abandoning them for the sake of safety? How about not a total eradication, but the tradition is carried on in small towns, where it wouldn’t be that devastating of an impact should a fire take place. Or how about we find solutions to this problem, perhaps by spacing out the wooden houses (in this case)?

What’s your opinion?

[The Sherpa Empire]

"Should we forsake tradition for the sake of safety?" is too general to answer.

Should we ban wooden buildings in the name of fire safety? No. Wooden buildings are nice.

[Bluelight-R006]

"Should we forsake tradition for the sake of safety?" is too general to answer.

Should we ban wooden buildings in the name of fire safety? No. Wooden buildings are nice.

I did say certain tradition, which meant the tradition that is not mostly danger-proof.

[The Sherpa Empire]

"Should we forsake tradition for the sake of safety?" is too general to answer.

Should we ban wooden buildings in the name of fire safety? No. Wooden buildings are nice.

I did say certain tradition, which meant the tradition that is not mostly danger-proof.

It still doesn't specify wooden buildings, so the title is really unclear what the thread is actually about.

[Highever]

Building homes out of wood is hardly a Japanese exclusive tradition. Besides what is the alternative? We all live in totalitarian architecture style block homes built entirely of concrete?

[ImperialRussia]

Development of solutions for the betterment of man be the better solution

[Ifreann]

Building homes out of wood is hardly a Japanese exclusive tradition. Besides what is the alternative? We all live in totalitarian architecture style block homes built entirely of concrete?

Uh, there are more options than just wooden buildings or brutalist architecture.

[Demoness]

You are going to have to be more specific about "traditional" styles. I'm fairly upset about the Kyoto fire as well, but I'm not going to call for them to change a tradition. Since I can't get the tweet to translate on my computer, I'll have to base it on my view of the floor plan and having a spiral staircase doesn't exactly scream "fire hazard". Granted, most Japanese spiral staircases are outside, so it's a bit odd that it's the center of a building, but that doesn't seem to be any different from having a normal stairwell.

[Yuyencia]

i am disagree. Tradition are filter select long age, are more benefit than danger (wood building advantage healthy are example)

[Risottia]

My point is: Certain traditions—in this case, the tradition to build buildings out of wood—may not be suited to help people.

Yep, it's a stupid tradition.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-gl ... t-44504659

Reinforced concrete is way safer.

[Risottia]

Building homes out of wood is hardly a Japanese exclusive tradition. Besides what is the alternative? We all live in totalitarian architecture style block homes built entirely of concrete?

Of course, totally, that's the only option. Either wooden cabins or 50's era blocks.

[Highever]

Building homes out of wood is hardly a Japanese exclusive tradition. Besides what is the alternative? We all live in totalitarian architecture style block homes built entirely of concrete?

Of course, totally, that's the only option. Either wooden cabins or 50's era blocks.

I'm being facetious obviously, and naming the safest thing I can think of. But I also fail to see how if this is a safety issue how from that perspective cramming hundreds of people into a glass tower like is pictured is safer than a wooden house.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

I would happily see the end of running of the bulls at Pamplona.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

"Should we forsake tradition for the sake of safety?" is too general to answer.

Should we ban wooden buildings in the name of fire safety? No. Wooden buildings are nice.

I did say certain tradition, which meant the tradition that is not mostly danger-proof.

I’m not sure building a certain way is a “tradition”. Perhaps you meant certain practices.

[Zordennox]

I’ve recently come up with the idea for this topic.

Recently, as you may have heard: The Kyoto Animation’s studio was burnt down, and 33 people [confirmed] died. According to this tweet (when translated), says that the fire spread across the building easily because of the wood, and spiral staircase inside the building.

Another scenario is the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which led fires to start in wooden homes, close next to each other. Thus allowing the fire to easily spread to other houses. And because of unwanted road blockades (e.g. debris), the firefighters couldn’t reach the fire to extinguish it. Thus providing much more inconvenience to the affected people.

My point is: Certain traditions—in this case, the tradition to build buildings out of wood—may not be suited to help people. They are not fireproof, for example, and they get people into harm’s way.

Thus, should we still practice certain traditions? Or re-evaluate what we do and start abandoning them for the sake of safety? How about not a total eradication, but the tradition is carried on in small towns, where it wouldn’t be that devastating of an impact should a fire take place. Or how about we find solutions to this problem, perhaps by spacing out the wooden houses (in this case)?

What’s your opinion?

Traditions are very important for humans because they connect us to collective experiences with a historical connection. There are practical reasons, and some would say perennial truths, for every tradition. Principals that do not withstand metaphysical pressure are not traditions at all.

In the case you stated with the wooden buildings, the tradition of building wooden buildings may not be as unsafe as you think. Also, the people who created the tradition of building wooden buildings may not have considered the safety of the building to be extremely important. They may have valued convenience and comfort much more.

[Alvecia]

Depends on the tradition I suppose.

[Risottia]

But I also fail to see how if this is a safety issue how from that perspective cramming hundreds of people into a glass tower like is pictured is safer than a wooden house.

1.That's not a glass tower, it's a reinforced concrete tower.
2.Well, when a small airplane smashed right into it, only three people (the pilot included) died, and the fire was quickly subdued. Try doing the same with a wooden building.
3.Also, speaking of wooden houses vs brick-and-mortar or concrete buildings, Milan was bombed about as hard as the German industrial cities: but as Milan is mostly built in bricks, stones and concrete, the carpet bombings with incendiary weapons were quite ineffective - failing to create the firestorms that destroyed the German cities - resulting ultimately in lesser destruction and lesser loss of life.
4.Reinforced concrete buildings can be build following anti-seismic criteria, to the point that Japanese reinforced concrete skyscrapers are actually safer than the traditional Japanese wooden houses during an earthquake.

[Heloin]

Buildings aren't built out of wood because it's tradition. They're built out of wood because it's cheap.

[Castelia]

I would say that it depends on what kind of tradition you're talking about.

[Kowani]

I’ve recently come up with the idea for this topic.

Recently, as you may have heard: The Kyoto Animation’s studio was burnt down, and 33 people [confirmed] died. According to this tweet (when translated), says that the fire spread across the building easily because of the wood, and spiral staircase inside the building.

Another scenario is the 1995 Kobe earthquake, which led fires to start in wooden homes, close next to each other. Thus allowing the fire to easily spread to other houses. And because of unwanted road blockades (e.g. debris), the firefighters couldn’t reach the fire to extinguish it. Thus providing much more inconvenience to the affected people.

My point is: Certain traditions—in this case, the tradition to build buildings out of wood—may not be suited to help people. They are not fireproof, for example, and they get people into harm’s way.

Thus, should we still practice certain traditions? Or re-evaluate what we do and start abandoning them for the sake of safety? How about not a total eradication, but the tradition is carried on in small towns, where it wouldn’t be that devastating of an impact should a fire take place. Or how about we find solutions to this problem, perhaps by spacing out the wooden houses (in this case)?

What’s your opinion?

Traditions are very important for humans because they connect us to collective experiences with a historical connection. There are practical reasons, and some would say perennial truths, for every tradition.

And tradition for tradition’s sake is the worst possible argument. There is no culture, besides a few isolated tribes, that has conserved every part of their culture. There are definitely no practical reasons for a lot of traditional practices.

[Zordennox]

Traditions are very important for humans because they connect us to collective experiences with a historical connection. There are practical reasons, and some would say perennial truths, for every tradition.

1)And tradition for tradition’s sake is the worst possible argument. 2)There is no culture, besides a few isolated tribes, that has conserved every part of their culture. 3)There are definitely no practical reasons for a lot of traditional practices.

1) Not necessarily.

2) Modern consumerism, materialism, and secularism could hardly be described as cultural, they're anti-cultural or post-cultural. Cultures are based on traditions.

3) Not at all true. Every established tradition has a reason behind why it was established.

[EastKekistan]

Good. Now we get all the psychological trads here.

Some comments:

1. Do you see why we need ethnostates? It is to segregate trads from other people. Let trads be trads in their tradlands so that the rest of humanity won't have to be bothered by them.

2. This is a safety issue. Dragging trads into it will cause it to never be solved. Same for things such as TCM. No matter how unsafe and useless certain TCM "medicine" is since it is fucking traditional it is blindly backed by almost all trads and ethnonats in China. Don't ever attract trads to anything you want to reform.

Usually in the past even if people want to get rid of some archaic traditions they look for or make up even earlier traditions against them and accuse trads for not being trad enough. That was the main way to get reforms passed in a society with lots of trads.

[Kowani]

1)And tradition for tradition’s sake is the worst possible argument. 2)There is no culture, besides a few isolated tribes, that has conserved every part of their culture. 3)There are definitely no practical reasons for a lot of traditional practices.

1) Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. It’s a cheap emotional tactic with no actual logic.

2) Modern consumerism, materialism, and secularism could hardly be described as cultural, they're anti-cultural or post-cultural. Cultures are based on traditions.

Nope. Consumerism is a part of western culture in general and American culture in particular. That aside, something “anti-cultural” would be multiculturalism with no assimilation.

3) Not at all true. Every established tradition has a reason behind why it was established.

I know. The problem is that the reasons tend to be either very, very bad, or the tradition itself is harmful.

[EastKekistan]

1) Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. It’s a cheap emotional tactic with no actual logic.

2) Modern consumerism, materialism, and secularism could hardly be described as cultural, they're anti-cultural or post-cultural. Cultures are based on traditions.

Nope. Consumerism is a part of western culture in general and American culture in particular. That aside, something “anti-cultural” would be multiculturalism with no assimilation.

3) Not at all true. Every established tradition has a reason behind why it was established.

I know. The problem is that the reasons tend to be either very, very bad, or the tradition itself is harmful.

Let's let trads have their ethnostates or whatever they want so that we won't have to hear that again.

We can't argue with trads because they are statistically more violent, more authoritarian, more collectivistic and less open to reasoning and new ideas than others. The only thing we can do is to self-segregate from them (read: keep trads out of our zones so that we can be safe from them).

[Zordennox]

1) Not necessarily.

Yes necessarily. It’s a cheap emotional tactic with no actual logic.

2) Modern consumerism, materialism, and secularism could hardly be described as cultural, they're anti-cultural or post-cultural. Cultures are based on traditions.

Nope. Consumerism is a part of western culture in general and American culture in particular. That aside, something “anti-cultural” would be multiculturalism with no assimilation.

3) Not at all true. Every established tradition has a reason behind why it was established.

I know. The problem is that the reasons tend to be either very, very bad, or the tradition itself is harmful.

1) Traditions definitely include logic. Logic is the systematic study of the form of valid inference, and the most general laws of truth. A valid inference is one where there is a specific relation of logical support between the assumptions of the inference and its conclusion.

2) No, that is incorrect. Western culture has Nordic and Germanic roots. Any trend against these roots in Western culture is, by definition, anti-cultural.

3) That's your opinion, that's not discussing the facts about traditions.