Costs and Benefits
Apr. 17th, 2005 11:26 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Suppose one was near a large, old country that was largely cut-off from external trade (using Canada as the norm) and suppose that various of their social traditions resulted in a somewhat decreased lifespan. If opening the country to trade might reasonably be expected to undermine the social patterns that lead to decreased lifespans, how does one calculate how many people in the large old country could suffer unrequested lifespan truncation without outweighing the total lifespan gained? Is it as simple as saying "They live on average 77.43 years. After being opened, they may live 79.96 years (to pick values out of the hat), an increase of one part in 30. Therefore as long as the shrinkage getting there is no more than one part in 30, this is a net gain for the people in the old, large country."
no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 03:42 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2005-04-17 04:45 pm (UTC)Besides, is that the right metric? People will risk their lives to decrease the amount of time they spend sitting in their car, for example (speeding).
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:cost/benefit analysis of speeding...
Date: 2005-04-19 12:00 am (UTC)My philosophical position on rational driving behavior and my actual performance behind the wheel on the freeway at rush hour when the MORON IN FRONT OF ME WON'T CLOSE IT UP, , um, differ a bit.
Talking about people in groups, people in general, or depressingly often even the generally intelligent ones (such as me, yet another obviously above-average driver) as if they think is a classic GIGO situation: the results are baffling and frustration, but reflect observable reality poorly.
Pete Newell (still too lazy to set up a livejournal)