Yakk wrote:Are you familiar with the concept of "proof by contradiction"?
I see no contradiction in the idea that society might wish to save both the 90 year old and the 10 year old. That just shows that in one particular case the value of two lives could be held more or less equal, or at least fall close enough together that people would save both. It does not follow from that, that we would spend an unlimited amount of money to buy someone another minute of life.
Indeed, there are drugs that extend life for a few months, I believe in the case of cancer patients, that the NHS does not
buy. Organs don't go to drug addicts, unless there's some special mitigating factor. I don't believe really old people tend to get organ transplants either.
All lives are not equal. We expect to buy some outcome for our investment. You can't just keep dividing the outcome based on the fact that the scale you're using to judge investment/returns for different cases isn't fine grained enough to clearly distinguish them in some cases when there are all these other cases where they can be distinguished. People don't seem to work that way.
EdgarJPublius wrote:That's not a useful calculation here. Fukushima Daichi didn't kill anyone.
That's yet to be seen. If there's an abnormal spike in cancers or something in that area, then it probably did.
Edit: We're not dealing with actual deaths here. We're dealing with might dies. What probability given what you know of similar situations.... At the end of the day what's rational to guard against will be based on your best guess.