4 ms·

That's an I tereting point of view, and I don't want to dismiss it out of hand. Do you have any links re:that subject?

• eru 7y ago
  Which part? I tried to find some numbers about how much the marginal life saved in aviation costs vs other areas. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life is a good start, but doesn't have the numbers I was looking for. The argument about paying two different prices for the same good buying you less than settling on a uniform price is basic economics. But it seems like something the LessWrong people or SlateStarCodex might have a write-up for. The topic is difficult to discuss because huam life is a 'sacred good' and money is a 'profane good', and it is not socially acceptable to admit that we are making finite trade-offs between the two. And I do have some sympathy for safety regulations of the aircraft themselves, as they are mostly based on actual engineering, as opposed to the safety theater when you board the plane. But honestly, people aren't just trading off lives for money, they are trading off lives for minor inconveniences: you could make airplanes safer at no extra cost by mounting the seats backwards and removing the windows. Windows are the essentially holes, they weakest points on the airframe. Removing them from the design would even save money. Of course, you'd have a hard time finding enough passengers to pay to fly in you windowless plan. (The military doesn't have a problem with that. Their passengers don't have much of a choice.)