And if government doesn't assume a relative value on lives, then it is doomed to destroy many more lives than it can save.
It is a economic fact: Everything, including your life has an economic value. Denying that fact causes you (or a government program) to waste resources inefficiently.
If you believe your life is infinitly valuable, then you should spend all your money, time, and resources on maintaining a peak level of health and safety. I sincerly doubt that you do. Or did you buy your computer in an attempt to stay healhy? Ditto cable TV? Your car? do you drive only the safest vehicle or did you spurge on a cheaper life risking model?
Have you ever gone skydiving? Well then your life must not be worth a few cheap thrills. With every reward, there is a risk to your life.
Have you ever flown on a plane? Did you know that airlines value your life at something like US$300,000 in their accident modeling programs...Aren't you a firm believer in modeling programs? Maybe you think that the airlines should assign a higher value to your life and charge you more for your ticket?
Do you own life (ie death) insurance? Why? How did you arrive at an amount that your death is worth to your family? Why don't you spend more or less on you death insurance? I think your death should be worth at least 20-30 million to your family. Why don't you carry that much death insurance?
Economic fact: Infinite safety costs infinite $.
Learn something about economic modeling and then give me a call.
Space/Science » in reply to re: get real...
You have too much faith in government.
The whole thread (50 posts)
- Must Hubble be saved?
- re: To control it's deorbit we would still need to visit Hubble.
- Another idea
- Here's an idea
- re: What a bizarre notion...
- Hurts to say it...
- re: Yes!
- Wasn't Spitzer intended to replace the HST, in which case it is obsolete?
