4 ms·

For those who are willing to go through this thought exercise, if we're purely trying to maximize humankind's total well-being, how much wealth would we have to

For those who are willing to go through this thought exercise, if we're purely trying to maximize humankind's total well-being, how much wealth would we have to create to counteract one coronavirus victim's loss of life? Here's a set of 3 questions that I think leads to a possible answer. - How much would someone have to pay you to be put to sleep for 8 years, during which period you have no sensory input or output? - Would you rather be put to sleep for 8 years now or at the end of your life? - Do you have a preference over being put to sleep for the last 8 years of your life vs just dying straight up? I think most people would be willing to go to sleep for 8 years for $2 million. And, most would prefer dying 8 years sooner over going to sleep now. In other words, $2m > sleep for 8 years now > dying 8 years earlier == coronavirus victim The moral dilemma is that we're asking one person to die 8 years sooner to create an outbalanced improvement in quality of life increase for someone else. That is, you're taking away well-being from one person to give to another. I think government officials implement policies that redistribute human well-being all the time, but it raises alarm bells when we start dealing with life and death.

rubber_duck 7y ago
I think you're framing the question - the tradeoff at this point is not how much value will be created but how much value will be destroyed. The impacts of corona measures will lead to the economic slowdown and general reduction of wealth - for you this might mean that you lose your job, can't afford to buy a new apartment, car, furniture, electronics, clothes, etc. but for people that live close to poverty level that just got out of that place because of globalisation and increased economic growth this will result in less access to basic infrastructure, medications, food, development opportunities. And that's not even touching the reduction in R&D and economic activity that would improve the lives of people. For example - consider risky tech companies like Tesla being wiped out by market conditions - who is going to do R&D in things like battery tech in an economy where people are pulling out of capital investment ? Even the established companies with cash reserves will scale back R&D. And this will happen across the board - which will in turn make future crisis more difficult to deal with.
- chameleon_world 7y ago
  Well the dot com bubble comes to mind concerning people not willing to invest in risky tech companies but that didn't stop new tech from coming to the market
legolas2412 7y ago
Shouldn't there be a difference between 2m$ I can spend myself 8 years from now and 2m$ that some rich person earns if I die.
closeparen 7y ago
When is an X% increase in GDP per capita worth a Y% chance of death? Illegal migrants perform this calculus every day. Their decisions may be instructive. You don't see people crowding onto fishing boats or hiking treacherous desert to escape Europe ($38k). We can probably afford to fall to that level. It'll be a major lifestyle adjustment, but a doable one. Looking down the scale to Latin America: Chile, Panama, and Argentina are pretty okay (~$15k). Less so for your typical American middle-class suburbanite, but people have good lives there. Even Brazil is decent (~$10k). But once we start pushing into Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, etc ($6-7k) the natives start accepting pretty significant risks to get out. US GDP per capita is about $60k. Although it will be a terrifying shock, we can probably fall to about 10% of that before things are truly desperate. But once we're talking about killing more than 90% of the economy: yes, people might in fact prefer death.

rubber_duck 7y ago

I think you're framing the question - the tradeoff at this point is not how much value will be created but how much value will be destroyed. The impacts of corona measures will lead to the economic slowdown and general reduction of wealth - for you this might mean that you lose your job, can't afford to buy a new apartment, car, furniture, electronics, clothes, etc. but for people that live close to poverty level that just got out of that place because of globalisation and increased economic growth this will result in less access to basic infrastructure, medications, food, development opportunities. And that's not even touching the reduction in R&D and economic activity that would improve the lives of people. For example - consider risky tech companies like Tesla being wiped out by market conditions - who is going to do R&D in things like battery tech in an economy where people are pulling out of capital investment ? Even the established companies with cash reserves will scale back R&D. And this will happen across the board - which will in turn make future crisis more difficult to deal with.

chameleon_world 7y ago
Well the dot com bubble comes to mind concerning people not willing to invest in risky tech companies but that didn't stop new tech from coming to the market

legolas2412 7y ago

Shouldn't there be a difference between 2m$ I can spend myself 8 years from now and 2m$ that some rich person earns if I die.

closeparen 7y ago

When is an X% increase in GDP per capita worth a Y% chance of death? Illegal migrants perform this calculus every day. Their decisions may be instructive. You don't see people crowding onto fishing boats or hiking treacherous desert to escape Europe ($38k). We can probably afford to fall to that level. It'll be a major lifestyle adjustment, but a doable one. Looking down the scale to Latin America: Chile, Panama, and Argentina are pretty okay (~$15k). Less so for your typical American middle-class suburbanite, but people have good lives there. Even Brazil is decent (~$10k). But once we start pushing into Mexico, Colombia, Ecuador, etc ($6-7k) the natives start accepting pretty significant risks to get out. US GDP per capita is about $60k. Although it will be a terrifying shock, we can probably fall to about 10% of that before things are truly desperate. But once we're talking about killing more than 90% of the economy: yes, people might in fact prefer death.