[smallgovt]

That's not my intention at all. I'm simply pointing out that both quality of life and quantity of life are valuable to most people.

[afiler]

Again, with "quality" versus "quantity" it sounds like you're saying that there could be a lower quantity of people (some people die) in order to increase the quality of life for others.

[smallgovt]

If you're asking for my personal evaluation, yes, I believe that at a certain point, it's clearly worth trading quality of life for quantity of life. This applies to my own life. For example, I would rather take a 50% chance at survival versus living the rest of my life in abject poverty and emotional turmoil.

[afiler]

So you'd rather be dead than poor?

If you find yourself taking this thought seriously and you're in the US, you can call 1-800-273-8255. Please take care.

[DuskStar]

Not the GP, but I'd rather be alive and rich than alive and poor, and I'd rather be alive and poor than dead.

But say I assign utilities like this:

Alive+rich = 5 Alive+poor = 1 Dead = 0

So 50% alive+rich, 50% dead has utility 2.5, while 100% alive+poor has utility 1.

[beepboopbeep]

I'm going to guess that you're no where near having to actually make that decision for your self, thus you're comfortable making that statement on behalf of others.

[smallgovt]

I only speak for myself and would feel uncomfortable enforcing my values on others. That's why my comment posed this more as an open question and discussion.