4 ms·

This is the most inhuman thing I have read on Hacker news. Life is life and every life is important. Many skilled people are irreplacable, there is no economy w

This is the most inhuman thing I have read on Hacker news. Life is life and every life is important. Many skilled people are irreplacable, there is no economy without customers.

mehrdadn 6y ago
Interesting discussion on this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 Excerpts: > GONZALEZ: Valuing people differently was kind of tried once in 2003. The EPA, under the George W. Bush administration, was considering a new clean air standard. How clean the air should be. And the EPA was like, well, people over age 70 have fewer years to breathe clean air. They should count less. And a lower value on some lives would essentially mean looser clean air standards. > MALONE: The EPA suggested that, perhaps, older people should be worth 37% less money. > STEVENSON: It became known as the senior discount. > GONZALEZ: The senior death discount, actually. People protested. They held up signs that said granny for sale. It did not go over well. > STEVENSON: The backlash was so intense they, very immediately, walked away from that, and you haven't seen any kind of similar proposal since.
- mcv 6y ago
  Well, we've seen similar proposals now. The Lt-Governor of Texas suggested old people would be happy to die for the economy.
user5994461 6y ago
I am all for being inspirational and believing in humanity. Yes people are good most of the time. But being nice shouldn't imply being naive. Every single person in a medium-large organization is replaceable, no exception. I used to not believe it too but it's been shown time and again in my career. Even if executives/managers understand that treating their employees well has benefits, they will not blink an eye when it's time to take managing decisions or let employees go.
- oarsinsync 6y ago
  Yes, most employees are replaceable. No, the same is not true of people. My family and close friends cannot be replaced. Not quickly, not easily, not without lasting damage. Yes, there may be some economic benefits in the long term to "letting people die." No, there will definitely be severe short term shocks to the economy to following that strategy. 1-5% of the population dying (even when skewed towards particular demographics) means that almost everyone will know someone that's died, several someones that have ended up in ICU, several someones that have suffered badly, and several someones that just had nothing happen at all. If you ignore the second order effects of that ("I don't want to go to work because I don't want to end up in ICU like my buddy Dave"), the economic damage in the short term then becomes even more severe. The loss of confidence in the government becomes more severe. The willingness to return to the workforce reduces significantly.
- mcv 6y ago
  You seem to see people only as labour resources. I strongly object to that view.
alexashka 6y ago
Let's lower the speed limit until the number of deaths in car accidents due to speed is 0 then? In this physical universe, humans have a non-zero possibility of dying from coming in contact with other human beings directly or indirectly. You have to agree on some level of danger because trying to avoid all danger would itself cause death, by boredom and likely starvation. Now if we're going to agree that some people should have more resources than others and if we're going to agree on trading using currencies and if we agree that lack of resources may cause someone to die, we've just put a price on human life. I'm sorry that realities of life are upsetting to people who've been given a children's view of the world where all life is precious, but at some point, we have to grow up :)
- rusticpenn 6y ago
  Lowering the speed limit of a car to 0, and removing seat belts from a car because it cost more money to manufacture and test are two different things.
  - alexashka 6y ago
    You may want to try comprehending and responding to the entire reply, not a single cherry picked sentence. Here is a sample nonsense reply I can give you based on the first part of your sentence: lowering the speed limit of a car to 0 would mean it is no longer a car, because a car is something that moves. See how my reply makes sense if I ignore the rest of your reply and yet doesn't make any sense when your reply is seen as a whole? That's not a good conversation strategy.
manigandham 6y ago
Yes lives are irreplaceable but realistic risk assessment and actuarial modeling is required for the world to function.
- rusticpenn 6y ago
  Yes, however, Germany for example was able to reduce death count, flattenned the curve and is currently mostly reopened. Its possible to value lives and stabilize the economy.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

This is the most inhuman thing I have read on Hacker news. Life is life and every life is important. Many skilled people are irreplacable, there is no economy without customers.

mehrdadn 6y ago

Interesting discussion on this: https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 https://www.npr.org/transcripts/835571843 Excerpts: > GONZALEZ: Valuing people differently was kind of tried once in 2003. The EPA, under the George W. Bush administration, was considering a new clean air standard. How clean the air should be. And the EPA was like, well, people over age 70 have fewer years to breathe clean air. They should count less. And a lower value on some lives would essentially mean looser clean air standards. > MALONE: The EPA suggested that, perhaps, older people should be worth 37% less money. > STEVENSON: It became known as the senior discount. > GONZALEZ: The senior death discount, actually. People protested. They held up signs that said granny for sale. It did not go over well. > STEVENSON: The backlash was so intense they, very immediately, walked away from that, and you haven't seen any kind of similar proposal since.

mcv 6y ago
Well, we've seen similar proposals now. The Lt-Governor of Texas suggested old people would be happy to die for the economy.

user5994461 6y ago

I am all for being inspirational and believing in humanity. Yes people are good most of the time. But being nice shouldn't imply being naive. Every single person in a medium-large organization is replaceable, no exception. I used to not believe it too but it's been shown time and again in my career. Even if executives/managers understand that treating their employees well has benefits, they will not blink an eye when it's time to take managing decisions or let employees go.

oarsinsync 6y ago
Yes, most employees are replaceable. No, the same is not true of people. My family and close friends cannot be replaced. Not quickly, not easily, not without lasting damage. Yes, there may be some economic benefits in the long term to "letting people die." No, there will definitely be severe short term shocks to the economy to following that strategy. 1-5% of the population dying (even when skewed towards particular demographics) means that almost everyone will know someone that's died, several someones that have ended up in ICU, several someones that have suffered badly, and several someones that just had nothing happen at all. If you ignore the second order effects of that ("I don't want to go to work because I don't want to end up in ICU like my buddy Dave"), the economic damage in the short term then becomes even more severe. The loss of confidence in the government becomes more severe. The willingness to return to the workforce reduces significantly.
mcv 6y ago
You seem to see people only as labour resources. I strongly object to that view.

alexashka 6y ago

Let's lower the speed limit until the number of deaths in car accidents due to speed is 0 then? In this physical universe, humans have a non-zero possibility of dying from coming in contact with other human beings directly or indirectly. You have to agree on some level of danger because trying to avoid all danger would itself cause death, by boredom and likely starvation. Now if we're going to agree that some people should have more resources than others and if we're going to agree on trading using currencies and if we agree that lack of resources may cause someone to die, we've just put a price on human life. I'm sorry that realities of life are upsetting to people who've been given a children's view of the world where all life is precious, but at some point, we have to grow up :)

rusticpenn 6y ago
Lowering the speed limit of a car to 0, and removing seat belts from a car because it cost more money to manufacture and test are two different things.
- alexashka 6y ago
  You may want to try comprehending and responding to the entire reply, not a single cherry picked sentence. Here is a sample nonsense reply I can give you based on the first part of your sentence: lowering the speed limit of a car to 0 would mean it is no longer a car, because a car is something that moves. See how my reply makes sense if I ignore the rest of your reply and yet doesn't make any sense when your reply is seen as a whole? That's not a good conversation strategy.

manigandham 6y ago

Yes lives are irreplaceable but realistic risk assessment and actuarial modeling is required for the world to function.

rusticpenn 6y ago
Yes, however, Germany for example was able to reduce death count, flattenned the curve and is currently mostly reopened. Its possible to value lives and stabilize the economy.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]