9 ms·

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 o

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.

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.