From: ct (tilley314@attbi.com)
Date: Wed May 22 2002 - 23:59:07 MDT
At 03:34 PM 5/22/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>15yo 10F/10M
>25yo 10F/10M
>35yo 10F/10M
>
>45yo 10F/10M - coinflip
>
>The 5 year-olds can be deceived, and will not suffer. They can die. The
>older adults might be less important for continued survival of the rest.
>This minimizes the suffering of death and maximizes long-term survival, as
>measured in QALY (quality-adjusted life years), while attempting to
>maintain moral symmetry. A different valuation might be necessary once
>life-extension techniques are available - then a coinflip might be the
>most equitable solution. Additional complications might be introduced if
>strict economic considerations had to be taken into account - then the
>fifteen year-olds might have to die to save the economically valuable
>middle-aged persons.
>
>Rafal
I think that the 45yo 10M would easily edge out the 45yo 10F in combination
with the rest of your selection. (Greater economic and knowledge resources
to contribute combined with fewer number of years spent in declining value.)
[Valuation - Contributes more to society:]
25yo = 1.00
10yo and 50yo = 0.75
6yo and 67yo = 0.50
or
[VSL - Value of a Statistical Life:]
40yo = 1.00
20yo and 65yo = 0.5
And of course you're right about "attempting to maintain moral symmetry".
Historically, this has provided the most successful outcomes for humans. My
choices reflected my individual preferences. It is the "summing across
individuals to represent the social value" that is of prime interest here.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:17 MST