3 ms·

I never quite understood the idea that any amount of loss of life is unacceptable in projects such a these. I think we put far too high a value on human life, a

I never quite understood the idea that any amount of loss of life is unacceptable in projects such a these. I think we put far too high a value on human life, and fail to measure distinct numbers relative to their greater effects. If we built this project at the cost of 100 lives, but got it done on time and on budget, and as a result we save 500+ traffic fatalities, and 500+ early deaths as a result of pollution, while improving the quality of life of all of California… I would call it a resounding success. And yet, most people would just focus on the 100 lives paid upfront and call it an unmitigated disaster.

vkou 7y ago
> I never quite understood the idea that any amount of loss of life is unacceptable in projects such a these. I think we put far too high a value on human life, and fail to measure distinct numbers relative to their greater effects. What dollar value should we put on your life? $10,000? $200,000? $2,000,000? Should we encourage your boss telling you to do something stupidly dangerous, because the project's behind, and he doesn't want to pay your team overtime? 1000 people died building the Trans-Canada railway. In the early 20th century, 70 people died building a minor tunnel, used to construct a tiny hydro power plant in the greater Vancouver area. Any pre-WWII infrastructure project was built atop a literal graveyard.
- hwillis 7y ago
  https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%...
  - vkou 7y ago
    I doubt that the dollar delta between doing work safely, and doing work cheaply is going to exceed those cited values.
- legohead 7y ago
  If I didn't have life insurance I'd accept $200k for my life.
- lamarpye 7y ago
  Back when lamarpye was a young man in college, the Economics 101 teacher explained that we put value on life all of the time. He used the example of eliminating all of the railroad crossing in the country. How much would it cost and how many lives would it save. Do the division and you have the cost-benefit of the project. You could compare various projects and find the one that gave the most benefit.
sonnyblarney 7y ago
First, 500 fatalities were not saved by this, so your point errs quickly into strawman territory. And people do die all the time in construction etc. - there are already risks, but they are low. There are zero construction projects going on planet earth today that need to increase the level of risk such that 100 people die trying. Not even China is putting people down in those numbers for any reason. It's basically a non-starter - there's no reason for anyone to die these days building pretty much anything, other than in the most precarious situations.
- kenneth 7y ago
  Well yeah, 500 fatalities were not saved because this was not built. Nor have 100 people died building this hypothetical project. The example is an illustration, the absolute numbers are irrelevant. The points is, even if people die building a big project, it's quite possible that that's for the greater good and more people are saved as a result. A bunch of people died in the Apollo missions. Does that mean we should have never attempted it and let the Russians figure out how to get to the moon? There's no way it would fly politically these days.

vkou 7y ago

> I never quite understood the idea that any amount of loss of life is unacceptable in projects such a these. I think we put far too high a value on human life, and fail to measure distinct numbers relative to their greater effects. What dollar value should we put on your life? $10,000? $200,000? $2,000,000? Should we encourage your boss telling you to do something stupidly dangerous, because the project's behind, and he doesn't want to pay your team overtime? 1000 people died building the Trans-Canada railway. In the early 20th century, 70 people died building a minor tunnel, used to construct a tiny hydro power plant in the greater Vancouver area. Any pre-WWII infrastructure project was built atop a literal graveyard.

hwillis 7y ago
https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%20Value%20of%20a%20Statistical%20Life%20Guidance.pdf https://cms.dot.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/2016%20Revised%...
- vkou 7y ago
  I doubt that the dollar delta between doing work safely, and doing work cheaply is going to exceed those cited values.
legohead 7y ago
If I didn't have life insurance I'd accept $200k for my life.
lamarpye 7y ago
Back when lamarpye was a young man in college, the Economics 101 teacher explained that we put value on life all of the time. He used the example of eliminating all of the railroad crossing in the country. How much would it cost and how many lives would it save. Do the division and you have the cost-benefit of the project. You could compare various projects and find the one that gave the most benefit.

sonnyblarney 7y ago

First, 500 fatalities were not saved by this, so your point errs quickly into strawman territory. And people do die all the time in construction etc. - there are already risks, but they are low. There are zero construction projects going on planet earth today that need to increase the level of risk such that 100 people die trying. Not even China is putting people down in those numbers for any reason. It's basically a non-starter - there's no reason for anyone to die these days building pretty much anything, other than in the most precarious situations.

kenneth 7y ago
Well yeah, 500 fatalities were not saved because this was not built. Nor have 100 people died building this hypothetical project. The example is an illustration, the absolute numbers are irrelevant. The points is, even if people die building a big project, it's quite possible that that's for the greater good and more people are saved as a result. A bunch of people died in the Apollo missions. Does that mean we should have never attempted it and let the Russians figure out how to get to the moon? There's no way it would fly politically these days.