How much is Human Life worth?

[phildonnia]

There was a story recently in N Cal about a woman who was killed on the freeway when hit by a car that crossed the median. The focus was on the inadequacy of the median barrier in preventing the collision.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8082550p-9015047c.html

Anyway, it came down to the fact that an improved median barrier would cost such-and-such, with this value obviously being less than that of a human life.

We often hear stories about great amounts of money spent on better safety, usually with a justification like "if it saves one life, it's worth it.". Well, is it?

Especially in regard to traffic safety, which has become increasingly the responsibility of government regulators and auto manufacturers, is it fair to compare dollars to lives this way?

Suppose the US could spend $100billion on a project that would save the lives of ten accident victims a year. Would you be for it?

What if the price of all automobiles were increased by $1000, for modifications that would save 1000 lives a year. Would you pay the extra money?

Since we seem to be unable to eradicate bizarre and improbable death, it seems that additional money put towards safety will eventually encounter diminishing returns. What would be your threshhold, in terms of money spent to save a life?

[DarkMagician]

Price of a human life: $5.15/hour * 24 hrs/day * 365.25 days/yr * 75 yrs

or about $3,385,867.50

Of course, I already see a solution: kill them early.

[Dragonrock]

Eventually the rate of diminishing returns would outweigh any lives saved. If cars could be made safer, but the price would be higher, then people who can't afford the new model would keep their old, less safe model longer. If the government spends too much in one area just to save one life then other areas may suffer and end up less safe causing more deaths. The money well isn't a bottomless pit, so there has to be compromise somewhere.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The value of each person should be measured by how good of a angry fanatical debunker that they are!

[Iacchus]

If the additional safety is only to keep people from doing dumb things, why prolong the enivitable?

Seems like we have plenty of rules to enforce this type of behavior already.

[RussDill]

Even worse was in phoenix, where long stretches of urban freeway were built very quickly with *no* median barrier. The speeds on these freeways often averaged around 80mph. Fatal and near fatal accidents were *very* common. They called the 20 some yard median the "recovery zone", yea, right...anyway, it took a near fatal acciedent of a close friend of the governor to get anything done, and even then, its still only wire barriers, but, its better than nothing.

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Price of a human life: $5.15/hour * 24 hrs/day * 365.25 days/yr * 75 yrs

or about $3,385,867.50

Of course, I already see a solution: kill them early.

I seem to recall a calculation of the value of the minerals in a human body. It was something like $7.38 or thereabouts.

But that was a long time ago. Anyone have a more up to date calculation?

[Abdul Alhazred]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
... about $3,385,867.50


I'll deal. Pay me now and I promise not to do anything stupidly destructive.

I won't even kill folks who I know need killing, to save the administrative costs. :p

[Iacchus]

The thing I want to know is why death is such a big bogey in our culture? It's going to happen anyway, so why do we go through such great lengths to fight it?

And what's to accomplish by playing it too safe all the time? Without some element of danger how can we grow and test our character?

Besides, if you get into a fatal accident you're probably better off going all at once, as opposed to putting yourself in the hands of the doctors and lawyers, whose primary intent is to milk you of your life's savings, only to prolong your suffering and have you live the remainder of your life as a cripple. Indeed, there's lots of money to be had in the "death business."

And of course the longer that we live, the more laws we have to pass in order to insure that our "cripples" remain comfortable. And guess what? It isn't long before everyone's getting in on the act, and we have a whole society of cripples waiting on the government for some form of hand out.

Does that sound "healthy" to you?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
The thing I want to know is why death is such a big bogey in our culture? It's going to happen anyway, so why do we go through such great lengths to fight it?


If you don't want to prolong your life, feel free.


And what's to accomplish by playing it too safe all the time? Without some element of danger how can we grow and test our character?


Ok, is it safe to assume that you do not wear a seatbelt when driving in a car? Surely, sailing through a car's windshield builds character. Do you also endanger the safety of others with your attitude, do you drive drunk?


Besides, if you get into a fatal accident you're probably better off going all at once, as opposed to putting yourself in the hands of the doctors and lawyers, whose primary intent is to milk you of your life's savings, only to prolong your suffering and have you live the remainder of your life as a cripple. Indeed, there's lots of money to be had in the "death business."


Quite a cynic, what got you so cynical? I have a friend who was in a near fatal accident. Doctors, surgeons, nurses, lawyers, accident investigators, insurance men, friends, etc, all came together and made it possible for him to return to a normal life. He's doing great now, got married, had a kid. I'm not sure what your shtick is here.


And of course the longer that we live, the more laws we have to pass in order to insure that our "cripples" remain comfortable. And guess what? It isn't long before everyone's getting in on the act, and we have a whole society of cripples waiting on the government for some form of hand out.


That's a rather socialist assumption. Maybe it should be up to the individual to put away just a little bit of his money each month, so that he/she can retire in comfort. It's really not difficult, all it requires is a little self control

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

If you don't want to prolong your life, feel free.Of this isn't what I said. I said why go to such great lengths to prolong life?


[quote]Ok, is it safe to assume that you do not wear a seatbelt when driving in a car? Surely, sailing through a car's windshield builds character. Do you also endanger the safety of others with your attitude, do you drive drunk?No, I do wear my seatbelt and I don't drive drunk, most of the time anyway. And if everyone did the same it wouldn't be such a problem.


Quite a cynic, what got you so cynical? I have a friend who was in a near fatal accident. Doctors, surgeons, nurses, lawyers, accident investigators, insurance men, friends, etc, all came together and made it possible for him to return to a normal life. He's doing great now, got married, had a kid. I'm not sure what your shtick is here.What a waste of resources. Do you realize what this sort of attitude is reaping on the ecology of our planet? Where will all the doctors and lawyers -- and scientists -- be when there's no clean air to breath, and all the wildlife has died out?


That's a rather socialist assumption. Maybe it should be up to the individual to put away just a little bit of his money each month, so that he/she can retire in comfort. It's really not difficult, all it requires is a little self control Nonethess it's typical ...

I mean comfort is okay, but at what expense?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
No, I do wear my seatbelt and I don't drive drunk, most of the time anyway. And if everyone did the same it wouldn't be such a problem.


I sincerely hope that that was some attempt at humor, otherwise, you are truly a worthless human being (speaking of the value of a human life...)


What a waste of resources. Do you realize what this sort of attitude is reaping on the ecology of our planet? Where will all the doctors and lawyers -- and scientists -- be when there's no clean air to breath, and all the wildlife has died out?


Doctors and lawyers are killing our ecology? wha? Last time I checked, there are doctors fighting to save the rain forests, in hope that new cures will be found there. There are also lawyers working with enviromentalists, even volunteering their time, to help solve enviromental issues.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I sincerely hope that that was some attempt at humor, otherwise, you are truly a worthless human being (speaking of the value of a human life...)And who the hell are "you" to pass any sort of value judgment on me.


Doctors and lawyers are killing our ecology? wha? Last time I checked, there are doctors fighting to save the rain forests, in hope that new cures will be found there. There are also lawyers working with enviromentalists, even volunteering their time, to help solve enviromental issues. The same sort of ridiculousness. To protect us from what, the inevitable? Blind leaders of the blind ...

The "new cure" for life is death, by the way.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
And who the hell are "you" to pass any sort of value judgment on me.


I'm sorry, anyone who goes out driving while drunk simply because they don't want to pay for a cab, ask for a ride, walk, get a bus, wait till you are sober, or don't drink in the first place when you don't have a ride, and then puts others lives in serious jepordy simply because of their own laziness is a sorry excuse for a human being. It's stupidity and an utter disregaurd for the lives of others, far more dangerous than say, shooting a gun into the air in crowded city.


The same sort of ridiculousness. To protect us from what, the inevitable? Blind leaders of the blind ...


The purpose is to extend and increase the quality of life for everyone. What makes you think that doctors are blind?


The "new cure" for life is death, by the way.

Right, I suppose we should all get some kool-aid and get to "curing" ourselves.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I'm sorry, anyone who goes out driving while drunk simply because they don't want to pay for a cab, ask for a ride, walk, get a bus, wait till you are sober, or don't drink in the first place when you don't have a ride, and then puts others lives in serious jepordy simply because of their own laziness is a sorry excuse for a human being. It's stupidity and an utter disregaurd for the lives of others, far more dangerous than say, shooting a gun into the air in crowded city.Yes, but why do people get stupid and lazy in the first place, if there wasn't somebody there to "coddle" them along the way?


The purpose is to extend and increase the quality of life for everyone. What makes you think that doctors are blind?Tell that to the people in New York City, or in any other over-populated area.


Right, I suppose we should all get some kool-aid and get to "curing" ourselves. But that would be stupid wouldn't it?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Yes, but why do people get stupid and lazy in the first place, if there wasn't somebody there to "coddle" them along the way?


So now it'll be someone elses fault if when driving home drunk, you swerve off the road and kill my brother and my neice.


Tell that to the people in New York City, or in any other over-populated area.


OK...

Attention people of New York City: The purpose of medicine to extend and increase the quality of life for everyone.

Ok, now what?

[sigh, more meaningless tripe for Iacchus]


But that would be stupid wouldn't it?

You said death is the cure, so why not? Aparently, you think that after death, our lives will be so much better, which is strange...because even by the bible, heaven is not devoid of war, anger, rage, etc. I'm not sure why life would be much different. Seems to me we'd bring our capitalist values along with us. Wanna watch a play by playwrights, pay addmission, want a copy of dickens latest book, pay up. Want therapy from a certified therapist, pay up. These people are able to charge for their creative services now, why not in the afterlife. The bible also indicates that in the afterlife, we will all be slaves to some sentient being, sounds like a blast...

[Dorian Gray]

But that would be stupid wouldn't it? To paraphrase your sig line, if it wasn't "self-evident" to you, you'd be trying to expand your stupidity on multiple threads. And hey, look at that. You are.

Yes, but why do people get stupid and lazy in the first place, if there wasn't somebody there to "coddle" them along the way? I don't understand. We don't coddle you on this board, but you are still stupid and lazy. So I give up. Why?

Obviously, to get back to the topic, it would depend on which human life we were talking about.

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

So now it'll be someone elses fault if when driving home drunk, you swerve off the road and kill my brother and my neice.Now who's implying that I'm a drunkard here? And just because on occasion (and very rarely I might add) I may have had two or three beers and driven an automobile, doesn't mean I qualify for the "lunatic of the year" award.


OK...

Attention people of New York City: The purpose of medicine to extend and increase the quality of life for everyone.

Ok, now what?

[sigh, more meaningless tripe for Iacchus]And yet all it really does is foster the environment for a more insidious type of disease such as AIDS to take place.


You said death is the cure, so why not? Aparently, you think that after death, our lives will be so much better, which is strange...because even by the bible, heaven is not devoid of war, anger, rage, etc. I'm not sure why life would be much different. Seems to me we'd bring our capitalist values along with us. Wanna watch a play by playwrights, pay addmission, want a copy of dickens latest book, pay up. Want therapy from a certified therapist, pay up. These people are able to charge for their creative services now, why not in the afterlife. The bible also indicates that in the afterlife, we will all be slaves to some sentient being, sounds like a blast... Actually in the afterlife we find what we "relish" most. In which case you have to be careful what you ask for. ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
To paraphrase your sig line, if it wasn't "self-evident" to you, you'd be trying to expand your stupidity on multiple threads. And hey, look at that. You are.

I don't understand. We don't coddle you on this board, but you are still stupid and lazy. So I give up. Why?

Obviously, to get back to the topic, it would depend on which human life we were talking about. Well I guess we're all entitled to our own opinions now aren't we? ;)

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

To paraphrase your sig line, if it wasn't "self-evident" to you, you'd be trying to expand your stupidity on multiple threads. And hey, look at that. You are.Hey, is that what I said?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Now who's implying that I'm a drunkard here? And just because on occasion (and very rarely I might add) I may have had two or three beers and driven an automobile, doesn't mean I qualify for the "lunatic of the year" award.


I never implied you were a drunkard, I implied much, much worse. You, are an absolute scumbag, a worseless human being. You see no problem with having 3 (and probobably more) beers and driving yourself home. It is my most sincere hope that you hit a tree, and become unable to ever drive again. At least then I know you would not kill or maim the innocent because of your selfishness. (of course, the better hope would be that you *stop* drinking and driving)



And yet all it really does is foster the environment for a more insidious type of disease such as AIDS to take place.


Hmm...really? Are highest rates of infection in the most populated areas? I don't think New York City is world crisis central for AIDS. Last I checked, what really gets AIDS going is irresponsible people (like yourself with the drunk driving) who believe that it could never happen to them, and don't use protection, not population density. (of course, it can even happen to people who take all precautions). It runs along the same lines as people who refuse immunization of deadly deseases.

Certainly New York City is at the top (as far as the US is concerned), but the rest of the list does not seem to follow population density. I challenge you to calculate the statistical significance before making such claims.


Actually in the afterlife we find what we "relish" most. In which case you have to be careful what you ask for. ;)

And of course this is all based on your intuition, so there is a good chance you are wrong, and you have *no* evidence to support your claim, just wishful thinking. The bible itself conflicts with your intuition, it clearly states that war occurs in the heavens. I don't relish war, how about you?

Edited: s/know/no/

[Iacchus]

Originally posted by RussDill

I never implied you were a drunkard, I implied much, much worse. You, are an absolute scumbag, a worseless human being. You see no problem with having 3 (and probobably more) beers and driving yourself home. It is my most sincere hope that you hit a tree, and become unable to ever drive again. At least then I know you would not kill or maim the innocent because of your selfishness. (of course, the better hope would be that you *stop* drinking and driving)Better take it and run then because that's all you're going to get. ;)


Hmm...really? Are highest rates of infection in the most populated areas? I don't think New York City is world crisis central for AIDS. Last I checked, what really gets AIDS going is irresponsible people (like yourself with the drunk driving) who believe that it could never happen to them, and don't use protection, not population density. (of course, it can even happen to people who take all precautions). It runs along the same lines as people who refuse immunization of deadly deseases.No, I was speaking of medical science here -- in its attempt to "palliate" the symptoms -- not New York City.


Certainly New York City is at the top (as far as the US is concerned), but the rest of the list does not seem to follow population density. I challenge you to calculate the statistical significance before making such claims.Okay, well pardon me anyway.


And of course this is all based on your intuition, so there is a good chance you are wrong, and you have *no* evidence to support your claim, just wishful thinking. The bible itself conflicts with your intuition, it clearly states that war occurs in the heavens. I don't relish war, how about you?"Guess" again ... And sometimes war is necessary. Why? Because sometimes people do bad things, and the only way you're going stop them is by putting them down.

[elliotfc]

Originally posted by phildonnia
Since we seem to be unable to eradicate bizarre and improbable death, it seems that additional money put towards safety will eventually encounter diminishing returns. What would be your threshhold, in terms of money spent to save a life?

I think this is similar to the tremendous amounts of money that go into the health care industry, from keeping people alive to organ transplants and all of that.

My threshhold? I think taxes and medical costs are too high. At no point in human history have goverments/societies invested as much money in human safety/care as today. I care about the well-being of humans, but at some point individual humans have to depend on themselves and not the tax-funded charity of secular government.

-Elliot

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by elliotfc


I think this is similar to the tremendous amounts of money that go into the health care industry, from keeping people alive to organ transplants and all of that.

My threshhold? I think taxes and medical costs are too high. At no point in human history have goverments/societies invested as much money in human safety/care as today. I care about the well-being of humans, but at some point individual humans have to depend on themselves and not the tax-funded charity of secular government.

-Elliot

You make some excellent points.. I see a bit of a moral dilemma when it comes to preserving/prolonging human life at all cost.

Think of the millions that could be poured into promising areas of research instead of being used to keep terminally ill people alive for a few more days..
I'm certainly not suggesting I would presume to make such choices for anyone, but consider a scenario where you give a decision making guardian a choice of pulling the plug or diverting a few thousand dollars to a more worthwhile(?) cause..

I heard someone mention that more often than not, an MRI just gives you a high resolution picture of what it is that's going to kill you...

[phildonnia]

You could calculate your own estimated value as follows:

Decide how much you would spend for an optional air-bag on your car, and divide by your perceived probability that your life will be saved by that air bag.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by phildonnia
You could calculate your own estimated value as follows:

Decide how much you would spend for an optional air-bag on your car, and divide by your perceived probability that your life will be saved by that air bag.

I don't have a problem buying an air bag for my car... I just don't want to be forced to buy one for someone else....

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Iacchus
Better take it and run then because that's all you're going to get. ;)


not sure what you mean by that...


No, I was speaking of medical science here -- in its attempt to "palliate" the symptoms -- not New York City.


Doctors are attempting to palliate the symptoms of AIDS? I'm not aware of any AIDS drugs that treat the sytmpoms, except maybe morphine. Do you have any clue at all what you are talking about?


"Guess" again ... And sometimes war is necessary. Why? Because sometimes people do bad things, and the only way you're going stop them is by putting them down.

So people do bad things in heaven and violence is the only answer...sounds like paradise to me.

[evildave]

If spending a trillion dollars would establish a permanent colony on the moon, and $100 trillion would establish one on Mars, paving the way for interstellar colonization, (and another hundred-fold increase in investment at that) and this would save all the human lives there could ever be on millions of worlds for however long the galaxy (or universe) lasts, well obviously it's only worth it to spend money on social programs here on Earth, disregarding all the lucrative technology (especially for energy production and food production in absolutely uninhabitable environments) this would generate.

Of course, when a communist gets entry-level space technology, it's all about the competition. You don't want them to colonize the universe.

Sure, the USA went to the moon first. And we've let those laurels rot and turn to dust for 30+ years, and it'll be up to 40 before we could conceivably be back... especially if we keep starting idiotic wars with little countries "just because".

Also, disregard those near-earth asteroids that cross our orbit. Any one of them could wipe out pretty much all life on Earth bigger than a bug, so we spend almost a million a year to have hobbyists watch for them with optical telescopes in their back yards.

Woopdy-#&*@-doo.

[Skeptical Greg]

Much too far sighted evil....


It's really hard to project a few billion years when one's primary concern is how to pay for blood pressure medicine if someone doesn't give it to me for free...


There was a dialogue once between Carl Sagan and a talk show host, where the host did a double take when Sagan mentioned that the Sun would go Red Giant in maybe 10 billion years..

The host asked " How many years ? "
and when Sagan said " 10 billion ... "

The host seemed relieved and said, " Oh, I thought you said ' million... ' ....

[evildave]

Billion years? A big rock could smash into us tomorrow. After all, it's exactly like a 100 year flood: you never know how often it'll actually come in a century, or what year(s) it will happen during that "century". When it happens (assuming our continued total lack of preparedness), we won't even see it comming until it hits the atmosphere, and there's really nothing to be done unless we detect and predict it years in advance.

A smaller (and optically undetectable) rock (or ice ball) could hit us and trigger a world war. Flatten one city like an H-Bomb, see how many others follow. A few tons of mass is all it takes.

We have all of our eggs in one basket. Of course wars (as already cited) can start over the stupidest of things. DNA/RNA research could yet yield the perfect killing virus to wipe us all out. Maybe a nice airborne pathogen that sterilizes a few years after exposure, that maybe takes a few more years to notice it's even happening? Any of a number of things to disrupt the food chain could crash us.


How much is a human life worth if there's inoperable metastasized cancer throughout the body and in the brain, and dementia and unstoppable agonies have already set in?

(As much as the insurance and/or relatives will pay to keep him/her <s>suffering</s> "alive".)


How much is your beloved family pet's life worth when it gets hit by a car?

($15,000 to maybe save Fluffy after a lot of pain and terror, followed by months of nursing Fluffy, or $15 to definitely not save Fluffy, but quickly.)

[Skeptical Greg]

Some idiot ( being interviewd ) on CNN tonight was talking about how we shouldn't be waisting ( more ) money on the space program, but use it on something useful like creating jobs on earth or for healthcare... Sheesh.. All those out of work moon people...:rolleyes:

[evildave]

Actually, space travel creates tons of jobs. When the Apollo program (and practically every other massive federal technological push) ended, there were massive layoffs; especially of technicians, engineers, scientists, etc.

Not that highly educated, brilliant people matter to the economy. Get more Wal*Marts and good UNION service jobs going so we can move boxes from from overseas into America and raw resources (and other kinds of jobs) out.

That's where most of the engineering talent is being grown now. How to build things cheaper overseas to mask the inflating dollar's falling value.

The only remaining question is really: TAX and spend or BORROW and spend? One way, we spend more money now, and the other way our children and grandchildren spend LOTS more money later. Or maybe we do, if we live long enough. Ahh, the marvels of credit and social irresponsibility.

[Cain]

Originally posted by phildonnia
There was a story recently in N Cal about a woman who was killed on the freeway when hit by a car that crossed the median. The focus was on the inadequacy of the median barrier in preventing the collision.

http://www.sacbee.com/content/news/story/8082550p-9015047c.html

Anyway, it came down to the fact that an improved median barrier would cost such-and-such, with this value obviously being less than that of a human life.

We often hear stories about great amounts of money spent on better safety, usually with a justification like "if it saves one life, it's worth it.". Well, is it?

Especially in regard to traffic safety, which has become increasingly the responsibility of government regulators and auto manufacturers, is it fair to compare dollars to lives this way?

Suppose the US could spend $100billion on a project that would save the lives of ten accident victims a year. Would you be for it?

What if the price of all automobiles were increased by $1000, for modifications that would save 1000 lives a year. Would you pay the extra money?

Since we seem to be unable to eradicate bizarre and improbable death, it seems that additional money put towards safety will eventually encounter diminishing returns. What would be your threshhold, in terms of money spent to save a life?

There was a column on the op-ed page of the NYT a few days ago co-written by an economist and engineer. They were discussing structural standards on buildings in the midwest. These new regulations are intended to prevent deaths in the case of earthquakes, but they're costly. A society, from the perspective of an economist, needs to weigh costs and benefits. If we spend more money on structures on the unlikely event of an earthquake, then that's less money for, say, healthcare or cleaning up the environment.

When superfund cleans up a site, it could cost much less to reduce the waste from 90% to 50% than going from 9% to 1% because each bit of extraction becomes more difficult and more costly.

Economists also calculate the "value" of human lives. There are varying estimates, but the average person is around 10 million dollars I think. There's a column in _Slate_ by Steven Landburg discussing some of those findings that you might want to check out.

[evildave]

The problem with earthquakes is that they do happen everywhere, from time to time.

Like the "100 year flood" problem, you can't predict when in the next hundred, or thousand years it might occur. So we plan ahead and when earthquakes do strike, we have zero to dozens of deaths, instead of hundreds to thousands.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by DarkMagician
Price of a human life: $5.15/hour * 24 hrs/day * 365.25 days/yr * 75 yrs

or about $3,385,867.50

Of course, I already see a solution: kill them early.

hail el perrazo!