4 ms·
While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. (And even trying to figure it out after
by mikeash 7y ago
While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. (And even trying to figure it out after the fact is pretty ridiculous for the vast majority.)
A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why?
- ThrowawayR2 7y ago> While this is true, trying to figure out ahead of time if they’ll cost more than they contribute is the path to madness. I'll point out that people rescued from the brink of death are usually grateful for it, whereas these poor individuals, as noted in the article, often take a swing at their rescuers. I think that pretty much answers the question of whether they cost more than they contribute. > A person who eats poorly and doesn’t exercise can easily rack up millions of dollars in treatments for heart attacks and strokes. Yet they don’t seem to get anything like the same derision. Why? What makes you think people don't? Have you never observed someone or even yourself doing something unhealthy and thought glumly "Yep, eating/drinking this is going to put him/her/me one step closer to death by a lifestyle disease. Foolish of him/her/me."
- mikeash 7y agoHow does them taking a swing at their rescuers tell us anything about their relative costs and benefits to society? What makes me think people don’t? The fact that you begrudge $50 to save an addict’s life, while your theoretical reaction to someone eating themselves to death is “foolish of him” seems to back that up pretty strongly.