From: dougnews@access.digex.com (Doug Humphrey)
Subject: Re: Protest
Organization: Express Access Online Communications, Greenbelt, MD USA
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 05:08:40 GMT

In article <1992Nov17.042407.27816@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>In article <Bxqxpx.6D@access.digex.com> dougnews@access.digex.com
>(Doug Humphrey) writes:
>>
>>The safety of the population is *directly* tied to the issue of dollars.
>>
>>>I guess we as a society are going to have to decide whether we
>>>value all human life, or just certain ones.  If the answer is all
>>>human life, then the economic argument becomes irrelevant. 
>>
>>This is simply not true, and can not be demonstrated.  You can not
>>
>>Doug
>>
>
>Well, I guess in your mind you've made the decision that human
>life boils down to a matter of economics.  

Really?  I don't think that I said that.  Perhaps that is how 
you understood it though.  I do mean that it is not possible,
in the administration of public policy and the operations of
the government in its quest to serve the people, to divorce 
any subject completely from the concept of how you are going 
to pay for it.  Is that any clearer?

>As I said, the question
>is whether society agrees with you.  And if it does, what price do
>you put on a human life?

Well, whether "society" agrees or not, a price is put on human 
life everyday.  Example; crash barriers (big yellow drums full 
of impact obsorbing material) are documented to save lives on the
public highways; great things to have around.  If we put them 
everywhere, at every place that could use them, then we would 
save more lives than if we just put them in the places where 
they are most likely to be used.  What do we do when we make the 
decision to put them in one place and not another?  We place 
a dollar value on human life.  

Food processing: certain food prep operations have a risk of 
contamination, and some number of deaths each year can be directly
attributed to this.  Imposition of stiffer regulations would no 
doubt save some lives.  Why don't we do it?  Because the money being
spent now has brought those deaths to what is considered an 
"acceptable level" and it is argued that doubling the amount of 
money spent (and thus raising the cost of the products to consumers)
would produce only a marginal decrease in the number of deaths.
Note that nobody argues that it would do no good at all; all sides
acknowledge that spending X number of dollars, in this case WOULD
SAVE LIVES, but they have determined that it is not worth X dollars
to save Y number of lives.  That is putting a price on human life.

There are two examples, no doubt of hundreds or thousands, of how
a price is placed on human life each day.  

>Perhaps in addition, each crime a person
>commits should have a positive or negative value to it?  If the
>person's net value of a person's life doesn't equal the cost of
>keeping them in prison for an average life expectance, then we
>kill them? Is this what you are advocating?

No.  I don't think that I said any such thing.

>If so, what about a
>poor person who is on welfare for a good portion of their life.
>Perhaps, they will never substantially contribute to society
>anything, and indeed will take from it more than they contribute.
>Should we stop all their benefits so that they will die?  After
>all, we could spend that money in more productive ways.

Doesn't sound like a very reasonable to me, but it is your
idea, not mine.

>John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
>HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
>7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
>McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729


-- 
Doug Humphrey    Express Access Public Access Internet   Voice (301) 220-2020
doug@digex.com   Dialup: (301) 220-0462 Login as "new"   Email info@digex.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I say it again, in the land of the free; use your freedom of choice." -DEVO
Newsgroups: dc.general