3 ms·
Because ultimately, arguments relying solely on economics are moot. Technically, a human life has an economic value. And yes such value is used every day to de
by kalenx 7y ago
Because ultimately, arguments relying solely on economics are moot.
Technically, a human life has an economic value. And yes such value is used every day to decide health policies and insurance coverage. Would this mean that SpaceX killing N humans (where N=30B*number of years of operation planned for starlink/value of a human live) is ok? Absolutely not.
- shadowgovt 7y agoThat's exactly the calculus a company like Tesla does before taking a mass consumer product like a car to market.
- XorNot 7y agoNo it doesn't. If you know something will kill people, economic arguments are not considered sufficient. This was famously decided when it was revealed Ford elected not to recall the Pinto on the basis of paying compensation was cheaper then the fleet maintenance they had to do.
- shadowgovt 7y agoNot considered sufficient to avoid penalties in a court of law. But even that example can be reframed as a failure to calculate total risk in the cost / benefit analysis (i.e. they should have factored in the risk of a lawsuit and federal fine).