Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by biolurker1 2113 days ago
You are generalizing the argument giving conditions where life is worth it or not. That's not the point. And stop downvoting.
1 comments

There is a trade off:

* You can invest X money for a Y% chance that you will be revived in the future.

* You can invest X money for a Z% chance that your children will survive in %W case of a problem. Like a better surgeon in a heart operation or cancer treatment, or more food stored before a famine, or a home that is not in a floodable area, or more education to get an points to get a visa to another country, some swimming classes to be more healthy, more airbags in the car in case of a collision, ...

Money can buy survival rate when it is correctly invested, the question is which one is the the one that gets more bang for the buck.

PS: Just in case you are wondering, I didn't downvote you.

The best bang for the buck is to buy malaria nets.

I mean if we're talking about saving the life of people who are not yourself. But that would be a huge change in topic.