A question soon to be quantified by driverless cars
A question soon to be quantified by driverless cars
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
This is the harsh reality. I would even say that there are decisions made on a daily basis that are based on the "value" of a human life.
Think about insurance companies that decide if you are "worth" the 100k of medication a year.
Or the plans in the cold war in which the US would bomb multiple large European cities and high populated areas just to stop a possible Russian advance.
My opinion on the matter is, everyone's life is worth something. If not to other people, then to themselveswhat do you think a human life is actually worth? And are some human lives worth more than others?
(which should be respected by all), because we get one short rodeo, and that is it, and thus that rodeo is priceless and worth defending. I think people's value to society in general though, isn't as clear cut. Those who give back, work hard, and try to better the world around them, have more value then some slug of a person who leeches off others.
Are some worth more than others?
Yes, based on their education, skills and/or capital.
An engineer is more valuable to society than a burger flipper.
YOU set the value of your life. If you break in to steal my TV then you set the value of your life to be less than the value of a TV if I catch you. See how that works.
Me thinks Chromie has a whole lot of splaining to do!
In moral terms, this is a difficult question that depends on some core values that people don't change much.
In economic terms, it's not a difficult question at all. A 24 year old person fresh off of getting their MS in Computer Science has a much higher expected return for society than a sickly 80 year old person or a 4 year old with lead poisoning.
All humans should be treated with human dignity, but as an accounting and policy matter, they don't all have the same value.
I never valued children over adults. It's stupid to think "save women and children first!" what if they are cunts and retards? I'd prefer to quickly assess who is around and safe the most valuable person based on their skill set. For instance, take a movie like San Andreas (never saw it), The Rock is a rescue pilot and I guess The Big One hits SoCal, so he should be flying around saving people from his CHOPPER, ok, so that's fine (I guess he doesn't, he does other Rock shit instead), but if you land on the roof of a building that has 20 people and you have room for two, 6 are kids... sorry, I'm probably not taking any kids. They have no skills that would be more valuable than those that one of the adults might have. Now, if there is a super genius kid there, sure, save him, but otherwise... naw.
I sort of agree with this. If you have 5 really smart cancer scientists, 5 kids, and 5 random single mothers, im taking the scientists if I can only save 5.
Every life is valuable. For most sane people (not the depressed/suicidal) their life is the most important thing to them. I don't believe in sacrificing anyone for the greater good. However, some people are definitely worth more than others. Some people are content with doing nothing with their lives while others have a ton of ambition and get some good shit done.
Not much there are 7 billion of us. I mean let's say 3.5 billion of us die tomorrow for some reason is the world going to grind to a halt? Not likely. And yes, individual value varies among us. Unless you believe the guy who makes meth and sells it has the same value as a productive member of society.
The monetary value of human life is typically answered by any big business.
Actually, it's typically answered by government regulatory agencies that attempt to determine whether a given policy is worth implementing.
- - - Updated - - -
Depends which 3.5 billion and for whom you're referring to. Randomly killing half of the people in developed countries (say, by a terrible virus) would have a pretty devastating impact on the remaining half.
I disagree.
If you could perfectly understand that one person has the potential to return nothing positive to a society and one that has the potential to be a net positive; the net positive is worth more.
However, from a moralistic standpoint, I think this is abhorrent due to the subjectivity of morals.
I am the lucid dream
Uulwi ifis halahs gag erh'ongg w'ssh
Innocent Life > Corrupt Life
It gets a bit trickier from there. But I have zero sympathy for criminals.
But if we get more specific, for me Lives of People I care about > Strangers.
I doesn't I wish harm on strangers, only that in a dire situations, I would try to help my friends and family stay alive first.
Also, while we are on the subject.
Human Life > Animal life. Bring on the bacon.
A human life is valued as 100 pounds of gold. -Ninjas
No life has any value. Or won't in the future when they have machines that can do literally everything. Human lives have value only in so much as to what they can do or contribute. But we're told that people who can't do anything (ex: mentally disabled, physically disabled, etc) have tons of value when really we all know that isn't true. But our corporate overlords who control our lives see us as cattle. Probably worth less than cattle because cattle at least can provide food in a variety of forms.