> because it's extremely hard to precisely weigh one life versus another. I'd say it's impossible to do this in any ethical way without perfect knowledge of th

> because it's extremely hard to precisely weigh one life versus another. I'd say it's impossible to do this in any ethical way without perfect knowledge of the future. When it comes to solving this as a civil issue, this is not at all what we do. We look at the future potential value of that individual persons life and then ask a jury to decide the award. > So for example I'd try to save a diverse mixture of kinds of people from a sinking ship Assuming you can actually measure diversity acceptably in such conditions. > or I'd try to select for people from say indigenous tribal cultures that were under-represented in outcomes Without asking why they're under represented? Is a tribe of cannibals or a classroom of children more valuable? > Selecting for diversity rather than quality of life feels like it avoids some of the tyranny of the masses kind of thinking and the worst of human-centric thinking. You've only described racial diversity. What about diversity of lived experience? Diversity of thought? Diversity of religion? Where do these rank against race?