[tokenadult]

This article ended up being more interesting than I expected. Particularly noteworthy is the point that if a program sets an unusually high value on human life, it diverts resources from other programs also intended to protect human life, and thus brings about LESSENED protection of human life through that drain on resources. This provides thoughtful perspective on policy trade-offs. As Thomas Sowell has written, "The first lesson of economics is scarcity: There is never enough of anything to satisfy all those who want it. The first lesson of politics is to disregard the first lesson of economics."

[benwr]

I did find the policy of rejecting proposals with costs higher than $3MM/life-saved very interesting. If saving lives made up the entire extent of the federal budget, that sort of thing would clearly be appropriate. But as it is, is the money saved by the rejection of such proposals always redirected back into other lifesaving efforts?

If not, that would also seem to imply that a life's value is significantly less than $3MM. The author does specify that that figure is an upper limit.

[jessriedel]

>But as it is, is the money saved by the rejection of such proposals always redirected back into other lifesaving efforts? >If not, that would also seem to imply that a life's value is significantly less than $3MM. The author does specify that that figure is an upper limit.

No, it would just imply that we value other things. Also, it's crazy to think we can infer a consistent set of societal preferences from government actions. Individual humans aren't even consistent, much less when they get into groups.

[benwr]

Of course I was referring to the apparent value based on the metric used in the article, and not any socially normative value.

[DavidSJ]

No one's claiming that every dollar saved will be directed back into lifesaving efforts, but the mere fact that we could be doing that is proof that what we're doing right now is not the best option we have available to us. Once we accept that, we can decide if saving more lives is the best use of that money, or instead we'd rather pursue other objectives such as actually going to Mars.

[mmahemoff]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_of_life#Estimates_of_the_...

Various policy setters have to make these difficult decisions.

[Nick_C]

Yes. The "statistical murder" is a real phenomenon in ordinary life.

A decade or so ago Australia had a tightly regulated domestic air travel industry. Lobbyists successfully argued for deregulation so that air travel prices would come down, enabling more people to travel by the much-safer aeroplane than by risky road travel. It worked too.

[bjornsing]

The most interesting aspect IMHO is that just about everybody would agree that this reasoning brought to its logical conclusion is immoral.

For example, a Space Shuttle launch costs on average $450 million, kills on average 0.1 astronauts and destroys 0.015 shuttles (worth $3 billion). If the Space Shuttle could be redesigned so that on average it cost $300 million to launch but killed two astronauts every time, predictably, would that be morally right?

I would say no. But I agree that contradicts logic. I draw the conclusion that logic is for deciding some things and feelings are for deciding others.

[lutorm]

Particularly noteworthy is the point that if a program sets an unusually high value on human life, it diverts resources from other programs also intended to protect human life

It's an interesting thought experiment, but of course that's not really relevant to the example at hand. If NASA insisted on 1e-10 astronaut risk, it would not divert any money from other programs that protect human life, because the NASA appropriations are not for that purpose. It would just mean that NASA got nothing done, and maybe eventually it would be shut down. But assuming that there's a rational and efficient allocation of resources for a clear goal seems just as much a fiction as other economic concepts like "efficient markets".