5 ms·
If the true cost of bad air quality is a lower lifespan, what dollar amount makes it okay to contribute to the problem?
by caslon 4y ago
If the true cost of bad air quality is a lower lifespan, what dollar amount makes it okay to contribute to the problem?
- Dave_Rosenthal 4y agoAlthough it may seem somehow unsavory, there is a long history of placing value on the probabilistic saving of human life (e.g. in highway engineering). We have limited resources in the world to save lives and doing the math is better than the alternative.
- fwungy 4y agoThe value of a human life in engineering calculations is about $8M. Seems barbaric, but if you don't do it you have no way to stop adding safety measures to anything and thus cannot do anything.
- onecommentman 4y agoFor the US, that’s roughly correct. For one State in India, $640K. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#India Although, given the expected lives saved from using modern agricultural equipment and practices instead of slash-and-burn for planting crops in the districts surrounding Delhi, I’m guessing the India number is a gross overestimate. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/11/25/delhi-the-worlds-most-air-polluted-capital-fights-back/ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/11/25...
- seiferteric 4y agonot necessarily, if the products/services produced that cause the pollution also positively impact lifespan, you have to take that into account to decide if it is a net benefit or not.
- WalterBright 4y agoAll endeavors have a risk of death to them, including getting out of bed in the morning. How many dollars are you willing to pay to get an extra hour of life?
- londons_explore 4y agoIt's time to end the trope of "no amount of money is worth risking safety for". There is a direct tradeoff between money and human life. For example, you could go and dig a nuclear bunker in your backyard to keep you safe against nuclear attack. Oh? You don't want to spend all your life savings on that? Well you have just traded your safety for money. Money and safety are directly exchangeable, and we should recognise the exchange rate so we can exchange one for the other when it is a good deal to do so.
- XorNot 4y agoYour example takes a tradeoff you personally have complete control over: whether or not you, by your own decision making, build that bunker. Instead your employer is going to tell you that if you don't go stand under that load being crane lifted, then you're not a "team player" and will be fired.
- londons_explore 4y agoWe have social solutions for that too... When the risk and reward go to different places, someone offers to pay the other... "I'll pay you $200 extra to go do this risky thing for my benefit".
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y agoagain, you have a choice to take that deal The people that are being poisoned have no choice.