From: Dan Clemmensen (dgc@cox.rr.com)
Date: Tue Sep 04 2001 - 18:08:59 MDT
Mitchell, Jerry (3337) wrote:
> I've actually thought along these lines before. As much as I hate government
> spending and if they are intent on doing it, they should at least organize
> it so that they address the most serious issues first. I.E. Take your total
> "do-gooder" budget and break it down like this. What's the number 1 cause of
> death, apply the most money to that. #2 gets the 2nd highest allotment of
> cash. etc.... I'm sure there's a ton of politics involved, but there should
> be some cost benefit analysis done on these things I would hope. Maybe this
> is where a good program could be built to assess the relative worth on
> certain projects.
>
> P.S. I would think that aging and aging illnesses would get the most
> attention at this point. Nice transumanist line of thought in here I think.
> :)
>
Nope. I think the big five contributors (in decreasing order of
cost-effectiveness of intervention) are:
Smoking
Alcohol
Eating habits
Driving
Firearms
I'll check the CDC web site and send an update if I guessed wrong.
Note that with the possible exception of driving, the risky behaviors
are considered voluntary, so we have the classic civil liberties
problems here: education is the nominal correct answer.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:10:23 MST