3 ms·

It must be tremendously difficult for the parents. It's only natural that they would hold on to any chance of seeing their daughter again. From the perspective

It must be tremendously difficult for the parents. It's only natural that they would hold on to any chance of seeing their daughter again. From the perspective of society, even assuming that someone declared brain-dead could be revived -- maybe with some future technology if they just keep the body functioning -- at what cost does it make sense to end the life? Are there other cases where the unpleasant (edit: was "distasteful) subject of the cost of a life (as valued by society rather than Bill Gates) comes into play?

perlgeek 9y ago
> Are there other cases where the distasteful subject of the cost of a life (as valued by society rather than Bill Gates) comes into play? Each time there is a decision whether to spend some money or not to reduce risk to human life, it puts a monetary value on life. These decisions can relate to how many doctors and nurses to employ, what and how much medical equipment to buy etc, but also more removed like investing into the reliability of infrastructure, the cost of education to become a doctor, deciding how much to value economic benefit vs. potential harm to humans through pollution, etc. Each time you decide to spend the money, you put a lower boundary on the value of life. Each time you don't spend the money, you put an upper boundary on it. Each time these boundaries become inconsistent, you could save more lives by spending money elsewhere. I really wish society wouldn't treat the subject of the cost of life as distasteful -- more consistent decisions would arguably raise the quality of life.
- schoen 9y ago
  A prominent piece on this: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/2001-2003/2003%20Thinking%20the%20unthinkable....pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlo...
- yitosda 9y ago
  I agree that this needs to be discussed more frankly. A better choice of words on my part would have been "unpleasant" rather than "distasteful". In any case, I don't know of any modern political system in which this important issue can be addressed directly -- rather than letting each authority silently make decisions based on their own values. It's also worth noting that the absolute value of people's lives (in terms of what's spent) changes depending on who's doing the spending. This is the same as saying "money is worth progressively less as you get more of it". That's unlikely to make the topic more approachable.
- Diederich 9y ago
  Related to this essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html It is taboo to plainly talk about the value of human life, yet everybody is making such calculations every day, though almost entirely at the subconscious level. Consider the following pairs of people. Imagine that you must choose death for one out of each pair. A sick 90 year old man, a healthy 5 year old child. A terminally ill mother, a middle aged man in jail for multiple violent felonies. Your young child, a young child living in South Sudan. A woman with a lifetime of schizophrenia, an undocumented worker who is trimming your trees. Your spouse, your child. These kinds of questions are uncomfortable to consider, and the answers are very personal. I wonder: are the benefits of such conscious valuations greater than possible downsides?
WalterBright 9y ago
> Are there other cases Sure, we make those decisions every day. Everything we do has a risk to our lives and others, and we decide if it is "worth it" constantly. You can die playing baseball, skiing, jogging, etc. You can die from being vaccinated. Most deaths are caused by lifestyle choices. Whenever some outfit says "safety is our top priority" that's marketing, not reality. A 100% safe automobile would never move an inch. You make a value judgement about life in the choice of car you drive, how you drive, where you drive, how often you drive, etc.

perlgeek 9y ago

> Are there other cases where the distasteful subject of the cost of a life (as valued by society rather than Bill Gates) comes into play? Each time there is a decision whether to spend some money or not to reduce risk to human life, it puts a monetary value on life. These decisions can relate to how many doctors and nurses to employ, what and how much medical equipment to buy etc, but also more removed like investing into the reliability of infrastructure, the cost of education to become a doctor, deciding how much to value economic benefit vs. potential harm to humans through pollution, etc. Each time you decide to spend the money, you put a lower boundary on the value of life. Each time you don't spend the money, you put an upper boundary on it. Each time these boundaries become inconsistent, you could save more lives by spending money elsewhere. I really wish society wouldn't treat the subject of the cost of life as distasteful -- more consistent decisions would arguably raise the quality of life.

schoen 9y ago
A prominent piece on this: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlock/Phil%20Tetlock/2001-2003/2003%20Thinking%20the%20unthinkable....pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/tetlock/Vita/Philip%20Tetlo...
yitosda 9y ago
I agree that this needs to be discussed more frankly. A better choice of words on my part would have been "unpleasant" rather than "distasteful". In any case, I don't know of any modern political system in which this important issue can be addressed directly -- rather than letting each authority silently make decisions based on their own values. It's also worth noting that the absolute value of people's lives (in terms of what's spent) changes depending on who's doing the spending. This is the same as saying "money is worth progressively less as you get more of it". That's unlikely to make the topic more approachable.
Diederich 9y ago
Related to this essay: http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html It is taboo to plainly talk about the value of human life, yet everybody is making such calculations every day, though almost entirely at the subconscious level. Consider the following pairs of people. Imagine that you must choose death for one out of each pair. A sick 90 year old man, a healthy 5 year old child. A terminally ill mother, a middle aged man in jail for multiple violent felonies. Your young child, a young child living in South Sudan. A woman with a lifetime of schizophrenia, an undocumented worker who is trimming your trees. Your spouse, your child. These kinds of questions are uncomfortable to consider, and the answers are very personal. I wonder: are the benefits of such conscious valuations greater than possible downsides?

WalterBright 9y ago

> Are there other cases Sure, we make those decisions every day. Everything we do has a risk to our lives and others, and we decide if it is "worth it" constantly. You can die playing baseball, skiing, jogging, etc. You can die from being vaccinated. Most deaths are caused by lifestyle choices. Whenever some outfit says "safety is our top priority" that's marketing, not reality. A 100% safe automobile would never move an inch. You make a value judgement about life in the choice of car you drive, how you drive, where you drive, how often you drive, etc.