4 ms·

I only skimmed past the abstract (wolverine case is gold, lol) feel that such an analysis gets squirrely, both morally and technically. A few years back, ther

I only skimmed past the abstract (wolverine case is gold, lol) feel that such an analysis gets squirrely, both morally and technically. A few years back, there seemed to be a desire to justify cigarette taxes with a "it costs the state money when you get cancer" rationale. Some of the analysis seemed to indicate opposite results. Lung cancer, for example, tends to kill more quickly than age related diseases, saving on nursing home costs and palliative care. Everyone dies of something after all, and death is expensive as is aging. Either way, it seems kind of strange to place economic values on life itself. I mean isn't economic utility premised on life? In any case, it seems trivially true that economic measures will always correlate with either population size working age population size, depending on the model. I feel like these kinds of papers only exist to be cited in support of cheap rhetoric.

t_serpico 5y ago
"I feel like these kinds of papers only exist to be cited in support of cheap rhetoric." Agreed. The authors already made up their mind regarding the conclusion before writing the paper. This is an analysis that should be done by a group not involved in aging research so it's 'unbiased'.
jjoonathan 5y ago
Any action you take to preserve life has the side effect of putting an economic value on life. You invest some amount of effort into the action and the action has some amount of efficacy, so you can always divide the two to find a valuation. I agree that this exercise usually winds up as cheap rhetoric, but I'm not fully convinced it's the fault of the exercise. Refusing to calculate a value doesn't mean the value doesn't exist, it just means we are letting our instincts decide the value for us, and our instincts are prone to doing silly things like spending the wrong amount of attention on anti-terrorism vs heart disease.
- dalbasal 5y ago
  This has a "trolley problem" feel to it. It's a contrived scenario that doesn't reflect real life. I'm not suggesting that all our decision making is good. Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. A model of the world where everything competes with everything isn't a good one for decision making. Just like "don't build a particle collider until we have solved poverty" is not a workable approach. Terrorism & heart disease don't have the same consequences, socially, politically or geopolitically. We're not machines. Even in machines' decision making, such moral calculus doesn't really play. Self driving cars won't, and don't need to solve the trolley problem any more than we do. ..and don't underestimate our instincts. They may not be as "perfect" as legible reasoning, but they are far more complete.
  - jjoonathan 5y ago
    > It's a contrived scenario Any time you help people is a contrived scenario? Uhh... I certainly hope not. Putting a valuation on life is not a result of philosophical debate, it's a direct, unintentional, unavoidable consequence of any real-world action we take that helps people. The only way to avoid it is to avoid helping people. Which is ludicrous. > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They sure compete for tax dollars and public attention. > We're not machines. No kidding. That's why we prefer chasing Bin Laden to chasing heart disease. The "value of a life" discussion is an accusatory finger that says "yeah, actually we did have a choice there, and our choice had consequences," and I understand how that's uncomfortable, but that's exactly why we need the tool to hold our instincts accountable, such as we can.
    - dalbasal 5y ago
      No, the trolley problem (an example used in moral philosophy) is a contrived scenario.
  - miltondts 5y ago
    > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They do actually. Both for budget and for misery.
908B64B197 5y ago
> A few years back, there seemed to be a desire to justify cigarette taxes with a "it costs the state money when you get cancer" rationale. When you have guaranteed pension funds for an ever growing number of bureaucrats, you HAVE to find new ways to tax. Taxing unpopular things is the easiest thing (and doesn't hurt for reelection).
- syoc 5y ago
  Tobacco tax does not make or break any budget, at least not where I live. It is also taxed with the intention of reducing sales, which in turn reduces tax income. This is also by large the result.
  - fennecfoxen 5y ago
    Heard of tobacco bonds? Financed with securitized tobacco revenues? While many of these are tobacco-settlement more than tobacco-taxes, they've done more to break budgets than to make them. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wall-street-tobacco-deals-left-states-with-billions-in-toxic-debt https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wall-street-tobacco-d...

t_serpico 5y ago

"I feel like these kinds of papers only exist to be cited in support of cheap rhetoric." Agreed. The authors already made up their mind regarding the conclusion before writing the paper. This is an analysis that should be done by a group not involved in aging research so it's 'unbiased'.

jjoonathan 5y ago

Any action you take to preserve life has the side effect of putting an economic value on life. You invest some amount of effort into the action and the action has some amount of efficacy, so you can always divide the two to find a valuation. I agree that this exercise usually winds up as cheap rhetoric, but I'm not fully convinced it's the fault of the exercise. Refusing to calculate a value doesn't mean the value doesn't exist, it just means we are letting our instincts decide the value for us, and our instincts are prone to doing silly things like spending the wrong amount of attention on anti-terrorism vs heart disease.

dalbasal 5y ago
This has a "trolley problem" feel to it. It's a contrived scenario that doesn't reflect real life. I'm not suggesting that all our decision making is good. Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. A model of the world where everything competes with everything isn't a good one for decision making. Just like "don't build a particle collider until we have solved poverty" is not a workable approach. Terrorism & heart disease don't have the same consequences, socially, politically or geopolitically. We're not machines. Even in machines' decision making, such moral calculus doesn't really play. Self driving cars won't, and don't need to solve the trolley problem any more than we do. ..and don't underestimate our instincts. They may not be as "perfect" as legible reasoning, but they are far more complete.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  > It's a contrived scenario Any time you help people is a contrived scenario? Uhh... I certainly hope not. Putting a valuation on life is not a result of philosophical debate, it's a direct, unintentional, unavoidable consequence of any real-world action we take that helps people. The only way to avoid it is to avoid helping people. Which is ludicrous. > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They sure compete for tax dollars and public attention. > We're not machines. No kidding. That's why we prefer chasing Bin Laden to chasing heart disease. The "value of a life" discussion is an accusatory finger that says "yeah, actually we did have a choice there, and our choice had consequences," and I understand how that's uncomfortable, but that's exactly why we need the tool to hold our instincts accountable, such as we can.
  - dalbasal 5y ago
    No, the trolley problem (an example used in moral philosophy) is a contrived scenario.
- miltondts 5y ago
  > Terrorism vs heart disease just don't really compete. They do actually. Both for budget and for misery.

908B64B197 5y ago

> A few years back, there seemed to be a desire to justify cigarette taxes with a "it costs the state money when you get cancer" rationale. When you have guaranteed pension funds for an ever growing number of bureaucrats, you HAVE to find new ways to tax. Taxing unpopular things is the easiest thing (and doesn't hurt for reelection).

syoc 5y ago
Tobacco tax does not make or break any budget, at least not where I live. It is also taxed with the intention of reducing sales, which in turn reduces tax income. This is also by large the result.
- fennecfoxen 5y ago
  Heard of tobacco bonds? Financed with securitized tobacco revenues? While many of these are tobacco-settlement more than tobacco-taxes, they've done more to break budgets than to make them. https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wall-street-tobacco-deals-left-states-with-billions-in-toxic-debt https://www.propublica.org/article/how-wall-street-tobacco-d...