human life price: speculation or supply and demand?

[Felch]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Dying in war is not natural because war is not natural.

I'd go the opposite route. I'd say that peace is not natural. Nature is chock full of violence, and often this violence is organized. Look at everything from army ants, to wolf packs, to our distant cousins, the chimpanzees. Competition is the name of the game.

After all, bees don't sting to say "Hello."

[EPW]

Dying is natural, the cause isn't relevant.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Felch
I think the price of human life should be calculated on the basis of expected income over expected length of life.

Skipping over your actual numbers, this position is both obviously true and universally reviled.

Consider the case where (for policy decisions where you're comparing lives saved versus $ costs) you value lives more than their expected future lifetime incomes. It would then be "correct" to spend more than our total world production to save every person on Earth, even though that's obviously not possible.

[Jon Miller]

The issue is one of opportunity cost. So your point isn't relevant.

Additionally, income isn't the most important factor (or at least, isn't the only factor). If you raise kids that benefit the human race a lot in the future, your worth is more than someone who just makes a reasonably large amount of money (for example).

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Of course they are - only when these primary needs are covered, they goes beyond (well, I admit there are exceptins, but they are rare and usuallly not sane).

If you take somebody and lock them in a cell where they have plenty of food and water, but are in solitary confinement, how long do they stay sane?

[Space05us]

Originally posted by Felch
I think the price of human life should be calculated on the basis of expected income over expected length of life. This would be weighted to include societal investment, like education and health spending. Expected spending (health care, prison) would be deducted.

Three quick and dirty examples.

1) College graduate, just entering work force. Societal investment of 150,000, expected income of 1,650,000. Expected cost (mostly healthcare) of 500,000. Total value of 1.3 million.

2) High school dropout. Societal investment of 100,000, expected income of 800,000. Expected cost of 350,000. Total value of 550,000.

3) Recent retiree. Societal investment of 200,000, expected income of 20,000 (works part time, volunteers). Expected cost of 300,000. Total value -80,000.

These are all made up numbers, but I'm sure the real information exists. It's the sort of thing insurance companies know all about.

Once you have the dollar (or euro) figure for a person's life, it would be much easier for newcasters in disasters. Instead of 150 people dying in a plane crash, they could come up with a quick number based on the formula, and on the value of the plane, and say "890 million dollars were wasted in a commercial airline accident." Also it would help generate dollar figures for the true costs of a war. Think of the economic hardship Europe faced after losing so many wage earners during the World Wars.

One problem with it from a human rights perspective is that it clearly cheapens the lives of the poor. Also, what factors do you include? Would you include race in your assessment, or exclude it, even if it might make your results more accurate? Luckily for me, I'm not really a "human rights" kind of guy.

If I were some sort of sociopathic dictator, this would be my way of figuring out which of my subjects were valuable, and which could be turned into Soylent Green. Maybe it should be a civic option in Civ 5

As a bonus to this, if a retirement community burns to the ground, and all the younger workers make it out alive, society may very well benefit!

My high school droput ass would draw and quarter you before I let your college graduate ass set a price on my head.

First rule of nature, those willing to kill live longer.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh really. Can you demonstrate what other kind of beings we are?

How did you manage to form that sentence? Is language a physical phenomenon? Are thoughts?

We are physical no doubt, but we are not just physical.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
The issue is one of opportunity cost. So your point isn't relevant.

Additionally, income isn't the most important factor (or at least, isn't the only factor). If you raise kids that benefit the human race a lot in the future, your worth is more than someone who just makes a reasonably large amount of money (for example).

JM

Start from the premise that we obviously can't spend more resources (including labor) than exists in the entire world in order to save the entire world, and as long as you assume that 1 death is, on average, 1/(6 billion) times as bad as everyone dying (I'd say that's a slightly high estimate, in fact), and you have to reach my conclusion.

[Jon Miller]

Resources includes more than income. So I am in more agreement with the statement that you just presented. A key point that I was making is that income or even future income isn't the only measure of worth or future worth.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

Good point Kuci.

That's the best proof I've seen that under all utilititarian systems, scarce resources are not only a problem, but they are inevitable.

Where's Aggie? He would love this thread.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Resources includes more than income. So I am in more agreement with the statement that you just presented. A key point that I was making is that income or even future income isn't the only measure of worth or future worth.

JM

However, when you're the government, and the only resource you can spend is measured in $ and the only things you get in return are lives, the average lifetime income is almost certainly your best upper estimate of the value of a human life.