How much is Human Life worth?

[RussDill]

Now who's implying that I'm a drunkard here? And just because on occasion (and very rarely I might add) I may have had two or three beers and driven an automobile, doesn't mean I qualify for the "lunatic of the year" award.

I never implied you were a drunkard, I implied much, much worse. You, are an absolute scumbag, a worseless human being. You see no problem with having 3 (and probobably more) beers and driving yourself home. It is my most sincere hope that you hit a tree, and become unable to ever drive again. At least then I know you would not kill or maim the innocent because of your selfishness. (of course, the better hope would be that you *stop* drinking and driving)

And yet all it really does is foster the environment for a more insidious type of disease such as AIDS to take place.

Hmm...really? Are highest rates of infection in the most populated areas? I don't think New York City is world crisis central for AIDS. Last I checked, what really gets AIDS going is irresponsible people (like yourself with the drunk driving) who believe that it could never happen to them, and don't use protection, not population density. (of course, it can even happen to people who take all precautions). It runs along the same lines as people who refuse immunization of deadly deseases.

Certainly New York City is at the top (as far as the US is concerned), but the rest of the list does not seem to follow population density. I challenge you to calculate the statistical significance before making such claims.

Actually in the afterlife we find what we "relish" most. In which case you have to be careful what you ask for.

And of course this is all based on your intuition, so there is a good chance you are wrong, and you have *no* evidence to support your claim, just wishful thinking. The bible itself conflicts with your intuition, it clearly states that war occurs in the heavens. I don't relish war, how about you?

Edited: s/know/no/

 

[Iacchus]

I never implied you were a drunkard, I implied much, much worse. You, are an absolute scumbag, a worseless human being. You see no problem with having 3 (and probobably more) beers and driving yourself home. It is my most sincere hope that you hit a tree, and become unable to ever drive again. At least then I know you would not kill or maim the innocent because of your selfishness. (of course, the better hope would be that you *stop* drinking and driving)

Better take it and run then because that's all you're going to get.

Hmm...really? Are highest rates of infection in the most populated areas? I don't think New York City is world crisis central for AIDS. Last I checked, what really gets AIDS going is irresponsible people (like yourself with the drunk driving) who believe that it could never happen to them, and don't use protection, not population density. (of course, it can even happen to people who take all precautions). It runs along the same lines as people who refuse immunization of deadly deseases.

No, I was speaking of medical science here -- in its attempt to "palliate" the symptoms -- not New York City.

Certainly New York City is at the top (as far as the US is concerned), but the rest of the list does not seem to follow population density. I challenge you to calculate the statistical significance before making such claims.

Okay, well pardon me anyway.

And of course this is all based on your intuition, so there is a good chance you are wrong, and you have *no* evidence to support your claim, just wishful thinking. The bible itself conflicts with your intuition, it clearly states that war occurs in the heavens. I don't relish war, how about you?

"Guess" again ... And sometimes war is necessary. Why? Because sometimes people do bad things, and the only way you're going stop them is by putting them down.

 

[elliotfc]

Since we seem to be unable to eradicate bizarre and improbable death, it seems that additional money put towards safety will eventually encounter diminishing returns. What would be your threshhold, in terms of money spent to save a life?

I think this is similar to the tremendous amounts of money that go into the health care industry, from keeping people alive to organ transplants and all of that.

My threshhold? I think taxes and medical costs are too high. At no point in human history have goverments/societies invested as much money in human safety/care as today. I care about the well-being of humans, but at some point individual humans have to depend on themselves and not the tax-funded charity of secular government.

-Elliot

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Re: Re: How much is Human Life worth?

I think this is similar to the tremendous amounts of money that go into the health care industry, from keeping people alive to organ transplants and all of that.

My threshhold? I think taxes and medical costs are too high. At no point in human history have goverments/societies invested as much money in human safety/care as today. I care about the well-being of humans, but at some point individual humans have to depend on themselves and not the tax-funded charity of secular government.

-Elliot

You make some excellent points.. I see a bit of a moral dilemma when it comes to preserving/prolonging human life at all cost.

Think of the millions that could be poured into promising areas of research instead of being used to keep terminally ill people alive for a few more days..
I'm certainly not suggesting I would presume to make such choices for anyone, but consider a scenario where you give a decision making guardian a choice of pulling the plug or diverting a few thousand dollars to a more worthwhile(?) cause..

I heard someone mention that more often than not, an MRI just gives you a high resolution picture of what it is that's going to kill you...

 

[phildonnia]

You could calculate your own estimated value as follows:

Decide how much you would spend for an optional air-bag on your car, and divide by your perceived probability that your life will be saved by that air bag.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

You could calculate your own estimated value as follows:

Decide how much you would spend for an optional air-bag on your car, and divide by your perceived probability that your life will be saved by that air bag.

I don't have a problem buying an air bag for my car... I just don't want to be forced to buy one for someone else....

 

[RussDill]

Better take it and run then because that's all you're going to get.

not sure what you mean by that...

No, I was speaking of medical science here -- in its attempt to "palliate" the symptoms -- not New York City.

Doctors are attempting to palliate the symptoms of AIDS? I'm not aware of any AIDS drugs that treat the sytmpoms, except maybe morphine. Do you have any clue at all what you are talking about?

"Guess" again ... And sometimes war is necessary. Why? Because sometimes people do bad things, and the only way you're going stop them is by putting them down.

So people do bad things in heaven and violence is the only answer...sounds like paradise to me.

 

[evildave]

If spending a trillion dollars would establish a permanent colony on the moon, and $100 trillion would establish one on Mars, paving the way for interstellar colonization, (and another hundred-fold increase in investment at that) and this would save all the human lives there could ever be on millions of worlds for however long the galaxy (or universe) lasts, well obviously it's only worth it to spend money on social programs here on Earth, disregarding all the lucrative technology (especially for energy production and food production in absolutely uninhabitable environments) this would generate.

Of course, when a communist gets entry-level space technology, it's all about the competition. You don't want them to colonize the universe.

Sure, the USA went to the moon first. And we've let those laurels rot and turn to dust for 30+ years, and it'll be up to 40 before we could conceivably be back... especially if we keep starting idiotic wars with little countries "just because".

Also, disregard those near-earth asteroids that cross our orbit. Any one of them could wipe out pretty much all life on Earth bigger than a bug, so we spend almost a million a year to have hobbyists watch for them with optical telescopes in their back yards.

Woopdy-#&*@-doo.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Much too far sighted evil....


It's really hard to project a few billion years when one's primary concern is how to pay for blood pressure medicine if someone doesn't give it to me for free...


There was a dialogue once between Carl Sagan and a talk show host, where the host did a double take when Sagan mentioned that the Sun would go Red Giant in maybe 10 billion years..

The host asked " How many years ? "
and when Sagan said " 10 billion ... "

The host seemed relieved and said, " Oh, I thought you said ' million... ' ....

 

[evildave]

Billion years? A big rock could smash into us tomorrow. After all, it's exactly like a 100 year flood: you never know how often it'll actually come in a century, or what year(s) it will happen during that "century". When it happens (assuming our continued total lack of preparedness), we won't even see it comming until it hits the atmosphere, and there's really nothing to be done unless we detect and predict it years in advance.

A smaller (and optically undetectable) rock (or ice ball) could hit us and trigger a world war. Flatten one city like an H-Bomb, see how many others follow. A few tons of mass is all it takes.

We have all of our eggs in one basket. Of course wars (as already cited) can start over the stupidest of things. DNA/RNA research could yet yield the perfect killing virus to wipe us all out. Maybe a nice airborne pathogen that sterilizes a few years after exposure, that maybe takes a few more years to notice it's even happening? Any of a number of things to disrupt the food chain could crash us.


How much is a human life worth if there's inoperable metastasized cancer throughout the body and in the brain, and dementia and unstoppable agonies have already set in?

(As much as the insurance and/or relatives will pay to keep him/her <s>suffering</s> "alive".)


How much is your beloved family pet's life worth when it gets hit by a car?

($15,000 to maybe save Fluffy after a lot of pain and terror, followed by months of nursing Fluffy, or $15 to definitely not save Fluffy, but quickly.)

 

[Skeptical Greg]

Some idiot ( being interviewd ) on CNN tonight was talking about how we shouldn't be waisting ( more ) money on the space program, but use it on something useful like creating jobs on earth or for healthcare... Sheesh.. All those out of work moon people...

 

[evildave]

Actually, space travel creates tons of jobs. When the Apollo program (and practically every other massive federal technological push) ended, there were massive layoffs; especially of technicians, engineers, scientists, etc.

Not that highly educated, brilliant people matter to the economy. Get more Wal*Marts and good UNION service jobs going so we can move boxes from from overseas into America and raw resources (and other kinds of jobs) out.

That's where most of the engineering talent is being grown now. How to build things cheaper overseas to mask the inflating dollar's falling value.

The only remaining question is really: TAX and spend or BORROW and spend? One way, we spend more money now, and the other way our children and grandchildren spend LOTS more money later. Or maybe we do, if we live long enough. Ahh, the marvels of credit and social irresponsibility.

 

[Cain]

There was a story recently in N Cal about a woman who was killed on the freeway when hit by a car that crossed the median. The focus was on the inadequacy of the median barrier in preventing the collision.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8082550p-9015047c.html

Anyway, it came down to the fact that an improved median barrier would cost such-and-such, with this value obviously being less than that of a human life.

We often hear stories about great amounts of money spent on better safety, usually with a justification like "if it saves one life, it's worth it.". Well, is it?

Especially in regard to traffic safety, which has become increasingly the responsibility of government regulators and auto manufacturers, is it fair to compare dollars to lives this way?

Suppose the US could spend $100billion on a project that would save the lives of ten accident victims a year. Would you be for it?

What if the price of all automobiles were increased by $1000, for modifications that would save 1000 lives a year. Would you pay the extra money?

Since we seem to be unable to eradicate bizarre and improbable death, it seems that additional money put towards safety will eventually encounter diminishing returns. What would be your threshhold, in terms of money spent to save a life?

There was a column on the op-ed page of the NYT a few days ago co-written by an economist and engineer. They were discussing structural standards on buildings in the midwest. These new regulations are intended to prevent deaths in the case of earthquakes, but they're costly. A society, from the perspective of an economist, needs to weigh costs and benefits. If we spend more money on structures on the unlikely event of an earthquake, then that's less money for, say, healthcare or cleaning up the environment.

When superfund cleans up a site, it could cost much less to reduce the waste from 90% to 50% than going from 9% to 1% because each bit of extraction becomes more difficult and more costly.

Economists also calculate the "value" of human lives. There are varying estimates, but the average person is around 10 million dollars I think. There's a column in _Slate_ by Steven Landburg discussing some of those findings that you might want to check out.

 

[evildave]

The problem with earthquakes is that they do happen everywhere, from time to time.

Like the "100 year flood" problem, you can't predict when in the next hundred, or thousand years it might occur. So we plan ahead and when earthquakes do strike, we have zero to dozens of deaths, instead of hundreds to thousands.

 

[Suezoled]

Price of a human life: $5.15/hour * 24 hrs/day * 365.25 days/yr * 75 yrs

or about $3,385,867.50

Of course, I already see a solution: kill them early.

hail el perrazo!