4 ms·

> This doesn't apply to human life. Yes it does, as the certainty even for someone healthy and alive today that they will remain alive as time goes can only de

by csdvrx 5y ago

> This doesn't apply to human life. Yes it does, as the certainty even for someone healthy and alive today that they will remain alive as time goes can only decrease. Look at how the best plans go to trash for people saving when they're young, with grand plans to retire early and gorge on leisure/travel/etc, when they suddenly find out they have a terminal disease or some other health problem that at best reduce their ability to travel or enjoy their leisure (trekking in the desert on a wheelchair at 70? Or on painkillers? Might be possible, but certainly not as fun as doing that same thing at 20, if only because you'll find fewer people of your same age group willing to join in on the adventure)

adamisom 5y ago
Good point yet the appropriate discount rate has gone over time with better medicine and technology. So it comes down to: do you believe medicine and tech will keep advancing and if so, doesn’t that mean the discount rate will get ever smaller over time? I think it does.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  While I agree with you that discount rate should decrease, I also believe that eventually we all get sick then die. Nothing short of a few radical breakthroughts can fix a strictly decreasing function.
  - jacobr1 5y ago
    And even if we have some breakthroughs for things like aging in general or cancer, attrition via accidents and other forms of physical destruction will always be a factor.
    - csdvrx 5y ago
      Physicial destruction for my software installs is no longer a problem with backups - so even that is not a given with sufficient technological breakthroughs!
satellite2 5y ago
First, it seems you didn't read the article, the comparison is not between various ages of a given person but between a bunch of human life now and a bunch of other life in the future. To make it even simpler, the DCF arises because you can simply show that receiving a dollar now is preferable to a dollar in the future. Can you even claim that about human life? If you cannot even find a good explanation for your theory how can you claim you can come with an equation for it? The DCF is a very precise way to compare mesurable quantities. How would you even define the value of a human life? You cannot randomly pick known equations and apply them to unrelated topics because there is a vague resemblance. This is supermarket philosophy. That's why it's ridiculous.
- csdvrx 5y ago
  > That's why it's ridiculous What's ridiculous to me is that you insist: > First, it seems you didn't read the article, the comparison is not between various ages of a given person but between a bunch of human life now and a bunch of other life in the future. (...) > To make it even simpler, the DCF arises because you can simply show that receiving a dollar now is preferable to a dollar in the future. Can you even claim that about human life? Are you mathematically guaranteed these lives in the future will exist? If not, yes you can. > If you cannot even find a good explanation for your theory how can you claim you can come with an equation for it? Yes, as probability theory creates strictly decreasing functions. > The DCF is a very precise way to compare mesurable quantities. How would you even define the value of a human life? You don't have to. With a strictly decreasing function where any f(x)>0, you can say either that lim x->+inf f(x)=0 or there's a w such that f(w)=0 - even if you don't know anymore more about f(x) If you are saying that's it's likely that the population will increase and humanity will not destroy itself, you have a partial argument, but then there's the counter argument that technology will progress alleviating all problems (a strong claim given the past performance of the human species fixing many ailments, poverty, etc) or that humanity will evolve into something else (say, gnostic ascention, computer uploading ala matrix, cybernetics ala battlestar galactica...) and back to square one: a bunch of real people exist now, for sure.

by csdvrx 5y ago

adamisom 5y ago

Good point yet the appropriate discount rate has gone over time with better medicine and technology. So it comes down to: do you believe medicine and tech will keep advancing and if so, doesn’t that mean the discount rate will get ever smaller over time? I think it does.

csdvrx 5y ago
While I agree with you that discount rate should decrease, I also believe that eventually we all get sick then die. Nothing short of a few radical breakthroughts can fix a strictly decreasing function.
- jacobr1 5y ago
  And even if we have some breakthroughs for things like aging in general or cancer, attrition via accidents and other forms of physical destruction will always be a factor.
  - csdvrx 5y ago
    Physicial destruction for my software installs is no longer a problem with backups - so even that is not a given with sufficient technological breakthroughs!

satellite2 5y ago

First, it seems you didn't read the article, the comparison is not between various ages of a given person but between a bunch of human life now and a bunch of other life in the future. To make it even simpler, the DCF arises because you can simply show that receiving a dollar now is preferable to a dollar in the future. Can you even claim that about human life? If you cannot even find a good explanation for your theory how can you claim you can come with an equation for it? The DCF is a very precise way to compare mesurable quantities. How would you even define the value of a human life? You cannot randomly pick known equations and apply them to unrelated topics because there is a vague resemblance. This is supermarket philosophy. That's why it's ridiculous.

csdvrx 5y ago
> That's why it's ridiculous What's ridiculous to me is that you insist: > First, it seems you didn't read the article, the comparison is not between various ages of a given person but between a bunch of human life now and a bunch of other life in the future. (...) > To make it even simpler, the DCF arises because you can simply show that receiving a dollar now is preferable to a dollar in the future. Can you even claim that about human life? Are you mathematically guaranteed these lives in the future will exist? If not, yes you can. > If you cannot even find a good explanation for your theory how can you claim you can come with an equation for it? Yes, as probability theory creates strictly decreasing functions. > The DCF is a very precise way to compare mesurable quantities. How would you even define the value of a human life? You don't have to. With a strictly decreasing function where any f(x)>0, you can say either that lim x->+inf f(x)=0 or there's a w such that f(w)=0 - even if you don't know anymore more about f(x) If you are saying that's it's likely that the population will increase and humanity will not destroy itself, you have a partial argument, but then there's the counter argument that technology will progress alleviating all problems (a strong claim given the past performance of the human species fixing many ailments, poverty, etc) or that humanity will evolve into something else (say, gnostic ascention, computer uploading ala matrix, cybernetics ala battlestar galactica...) and back to square one: a bunch of real people exist now, for sure.