REM@IMSSS (Robert Elton Maas, this host known locally only) (01/17/86)
phil%dean@BERKELEY.EDU says this message was rejected by USENET because of problems with the message-id, so I'm resubmitting without any message-id. Arpanet members please ignore duplicate. Date: 1986 January 09 18:16:35 PST (=GMT-8hr) From: Robert Elton Maas <REM@imsss> (this host known locally only) To: bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu Cc: SPACE@mit-mc.arpa Subject: gross or net number of deaths? NKP: Date: Fri, 3 Jan 86 11:44:53 PST NKP: From: "Niket K. Patwardhan" <bilbo.niket@locus.ucla.edu> NKP: To: Space@s1-b.arpa NKP: Cc: ota@s1-b.arpa NKP: ... NKP: As for how many deaths one would accept, a priori, to achieve a NKP: goal, the answer should be NONE! The only time you accept death NKP: as necessary is when you fight a war. Do you mean gross deaths (total number that die with your method) or net deaths (number that die with your method minus number that would have died without your method)? I would agree only with the latter. To say that it's unreasonble to allow one person to die to save a hundred million is stupid since the net death count is minus 99,999,999. To count just the one gross death and not deduct the 100,000,000 saved is absurd. If development of space could save 100,000,000 people and the Orion-rocket method used to accomplish that cost 1 life would you say it wasn't worth it because of that one who died? Disclaimer: I don't particularily like the recent trend toward putting long disclaimers at the end of each network message, but it seems to be the latest fad and I don't want to seem like some weirdo who doesn't follow trends, so I've decided to join the bandwagon. Watch this spot for more trivia.