4 ms·

If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute an additional $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense. Another w

by sgk284 13y ago

If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute an additional $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense. Another way to look at this: the government has various estimates for the value of a human life. It averages about $7MM. The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense. Most importantly though, we must recognize that the actual cost is actually just the cost of risk spread across society, so instead of one person taking the brunt of this cost, we as a society take it together. As a whole, it is negligible on all of us, and it's a risk that any of us can fall into. The value of having a system that supports each other is invaluable. Way more valuable than a measly $1MM. We have strength in numbers and we all benefit when a society supports each other. If we ostracize the statistical outliers in this support system, then the support system itself (the one which we all benefit from) falls apart. In short, more important than the economic argument (which I argue, still makes sense to spend $1MM on a baby), is the argument that the value to society from supporting each other results in a negligible cost for individuals and a near-priceless benefit to everyone within that society. It's exceptionally difficult to put a price tag on that, and it's orders of magnitude higher than $1MM.

gwern 13y ago
> If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense. No, that's not correct. You're not thinking at the margin.
- sgk284 13y ago
  Still makes sense at the margin. Updated wording slightly to clarify.
  - waps 13y ago
    Have you looked around lately ? Worldwide, I'd say at least 50% of the population does not make economic sense. That number is going up, fast. What do you intend to do about them ?
  - gwern 13y ago
    That's still a terrible argument. > The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense. Ok, fair enough, we'll ignore the question of whether average really makes sense, but there's a bigger problem: there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value. Why? This is completely unfounded, completely unjustified. In fact, as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? Early childhood trauma seems like it'll matter to their future prospects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis (As makes sense. If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker?)
    - sgk284 13y ago
      > That's still a terrible argument. It was one of three points made, the last point being the most significant. Our humanity should take priority over negligible costs. > there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value Without a standard deviation on the average, there is no way to say whether or not 14% is reasonable. Regardless, I was simply pointing out that it's a small fraction rather than orders of magnitude greater. Even if the child winds up providing 50% of the value of an average person, it can still be a net gain. Economic reasoning is just one (minor) aspect to this situation though. There is very real value in simply helping a fellow human survive. > as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? The stats you cite are for extreme cases on the edge of viability and the odds still slightly favor normal or near-normal development. This particular baby was born with a 66% chance of living and deserves more than a quick dismissal. > If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker? That's horrible reasoning. The human body has evolved over millions of years for birth. It is the optimal gestation machine. We're working on approximating this optimal machine with artificial machines and continue to rapidly make progress. In the rare situation where the human body fails for some reason, we attempt to augment it with the best artificial machines we've got. Nobody claims that premature births are better, but a hiccup during pregnancy shouldn't mean the end of a life if we can avoid it. Humanity progresses when a society looks out for each other. In particular, without bias. That starts at birth. What you're proposing is barbaric and borderline infantcide.
malandrew 13y ago
That still doesn't maximize overall benefit. What if the money were instead spent on 10 individuals that needed 1/10 the money to save their lives? The cost benefit analysis to determine what medical issues make most sense should try to maximize the number of person-years-lived across the entire population.
- jfoks 13y ago
  The money spend where '1/10 the money' was needed to save their lives is additional money spent, not 'instead money'. In this particular case, the 'instead money' was pure profits for a company (and some taxes for the government). Do you really think that the 'instead money' would have been a better choice? Money is just money and is completely replaceable. Actually, we have machines to make it: it's printable. Actually, we don't even have to physically print the money to 'print the money'... It's a number in a computer file. Every dollar is the same as every other dollar. Each and every life, on the other hand, is unique.
  - malandrew 13y ago
    Unfortunately, I wasn't clear in my comment above like I was in other comments in this thread. I am specifically referring to a not-for-profit focused healthcare system. If the choice is between profits and the care necessary to help a life, then it boils down to the contractual obligation of the insurer given the level of coverage purchased. In a nationalized healthcare system where costs are spread across all of society and the government has more or less determined the pool of healthcare dollars available by specifying the premium spent per citizen, there most certainly is a cost benefit analysis to consider.
- sgk284 13y ago
  You're assuming that we're at capacity on spending, but we're not. Instead, we can afford to bring 11 individuals into the world. The absolute gain to society is still greater than simply bringing 10 into the world. Maximizing number of total person years is not sufficient because a population 100x as large but living 1/5 as long would be superior to a population of the current size but living twice as long. I'd argue in favor of maximizing population size and average lifespan. Of course this ultimately leads to the requirement that humanity moves off of this little rock of ours.

by sgk284 13y ago

gwern 13y ago

> If the child lives to 80, she only needs to contribute $12,500 worth of value to civilization per year for this to make economic sense. No, that's not correct. You're not thinking at the margin.

sgk284 13y ago
Still makes sense at the margin. Updated wording slightly to clarify.
- waps 13y ago
  Have you looked around lately ? Worldwide, I'd say at least 50% of the population does not make economic sense. That number is going up, fast. What do you intend to do about them ?
- gwern 13y ago
  That's still a terrible argument. > The "extraordinary" expense of this child actually only requires a 14% increase in value over the average citizen to make sense. Ok, fair enough, we'll ignore the question of whether average really makes sense, but there's a bigger problem: there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value. Why? This is completely unfounded, completely unjustified. In fact, as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? Early childhood trauma seems like it'll matter to their future prospects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterm_birth#Prognosis (As makes sense. If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker?)
  - sgk284 13y ago
    > That's still a terrible argument. It was one of three points made, the last point being the most significant. Our humanity should take priority over negligible costs. > there's absolutely no reason to expect this hugely premature baby to have >14% increase of value Without a standard deviation on the average, there is no way to say whether or not 14% is reasonable. Regardless, I was simply pointing out that it's a small fraction rather than orders of magnitude greater. Even if the child winds up providing 50% of the value of an average person, it can still be a net gain. Economic reasoning is just one (minor) aspect to this situation though. There is very real value in simply helping a fellow human survive. > as a premature baby with massive expensive health problems, wouldn't we expect the opposite? The stats you cite are for extreme cases on the edge of viability and the odds still slightly favor normal or near-normal development. This particular baby was born with a 66% chance of living and deserves more than a quick dismissal. > If babies could be born months premature with no negative effects, why aren't they being born that way already so they can start growing up quicker? That's horrible reasoning. The human body has evolved over millions of years for birth. It is the optimal gestation machine. We're working on approximating this optimal machine with artificial machines and continue to rapidly make progress. In the rare situation where the human body fails for some reason, we attempt to augment it with the best artificial machines we've got. Nobody claims that premature births are better, but a hiccup during pregnancy shouldn't mean the end of a life if we can avoid it. Humanity progresses when a society looks out for each other. In particular, without bias. That starts at birth. What you're proposing is barbaric and borderline infantcide.

malandrew 13y ago

That still doesn't maximize overall benefit. What if the money were instead spent on 10 individuals that needed 1/10 the money to save their lives? The cost benefit analysis to determine what medical issues make most sense should try to maximize the number of person-years-lived across the entire population.

jfoks 13y ago
The money spend where '1/10 the money' was needed to save their lives is additional money spent, not 'instead money'. In this particular case, the 'instead money' was pure profits for a company (and some taxes for the government). Do you really think that the 'instead money' would have been a better choice? Money is just money and is completely replaceable. Actually, we have machines to make it: it's printable. Actually, we don't even have to physically print the money to 'print the money'... It's a number in a computer file. Every dollar is the same as every other dollar. Each and every life, on the other hand, is unique.
- malandrew 13y ago
  Unfortunately, I wasn't clear in my comment above like I was in other comments in this thread. I am specifically referring to a not-for-profit focused healthcare system. If the choice is between profits and the care necessary to help a life, then it boils down to the contractual obligation of the insurer given the level of coverage purchased. In a nationalized healthcare system where costs are spread across all of society and the government has more or less determined the pool of healthcare dollars available by specifying the premium spent per citizen, there most certainly is a cost benefit analysis to consider.
sgk284 13y ago
You're assuming that we're at capacity on spending, but we're not. Instead, we can afford to bring 11 individuals into the world. The absolute gain to society is still greater than simply bringing 10 into the world. Maximizing number of total person years is not sufficient because a population 100x as large but living 1/5 as long would be superior to a population of the current size but living twice as long. I'd argue in favor of maximizing population size and average lifespan. Of course this ultimately leads to the requirement that humanity moves off of this little rock of ours.