mmt@dciem.UUCP (Martin Taylor) (03/02/85)
>Much as people are unwilling to face it, there is an economic value to life. >Maybe there shouldn't be, but there is. The fact is, that if more money is >spent for saving/prolonging human lives, more human lives will be saved/ >prolonged. No matter how much money is spent. Each society places values >on human lives in a host of different direct and indirect ways. From >$5000 to have a contract killing, to $X per life saved to develop a new drug, >to X lives lost per million tons of coal mined. There COULD be a dollar value put against human life by this means, but there isn't. The apparent value of a life depends dramatically on what risk is being costed. A few million or billion dollars per life is apparently the cost when we talk about a nuclear power station, whereas very few (perhaps even a negative number) dollars is the cost when considering the SAME risks from cigarette smoke. So in the one case we (society, taxpayers, what-have-you) may subsidize killing, and in the other we go to enormous expense to reduce an already infinitesimal risk. No, I don't think society puts a dollar value on human life. Other than that, the quote (from Mike Huybenz) is valid. -- Martin Taylor {allegra,linus,ihnp4,floyd,ubc-vision}!utzoo!dciem!mmt {uw-beaver,qucis,watmath}!utcsri!dciem!mmt