3 ms·
You are generalizing the argument giving conditions where life is worth it or not. That's not the point. And stop downvoting.
by biolurker1 6y ago
You are generalizing the argument giving conditions where life is worth it or not. That's not the point. And stop downvoting.
- gus_massa 6y agoThere is a trade off: * You can invest X money for a Y% chance that you will be revived in the future. * You can invest X money for a Z% chance that your children will survive in %W case of a problem. Like a better surgeon in a heart operation or cancer treatment, or more food stored before a famine, or a home that is not in a floodable area, or more education to get an points to get a visa to another country, some swimming classes to be more healthy, more airbags in the car in case of a collision, ... Money can buy survival rate when it is correctly invested, the question is which one is the the one that gets more bang for the buck. PS: Just in case you are wondering, I didn't downvote you.
- knorker 6y agoThe best bang for the buck is to buy malaria nets. I mean if we're talking about saving the life of people who are not yourself. But that would be a huge change in topic.