MixedNuts comments on Stop Using LessWrong: A Practical Interpretation of the 2012 Survey Results - Less Wrong

-37 Post author: aceofspades 30 December 2012 10:00PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (24)

Comments (24)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: 1986ED52 30 December 2012 10:19:25PM 7 points [-]

why do those here with privileged information not invest heavily in the formation of new for-profit cryonics organizations, or start them alone, or invest in technology which will soon develop to make the revival of cryonics patients possible?

"The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." (John Maynard Keynes)

Also, at which amount of money would you be indifferent between either being put to death and receiving that much (to do as you please with, as set in your last will if you wish), or staying alive and not receiving that amount of money?

Comment author: MixedNuts 31 December 2012 01:49:31AM 0 points [-]

5.8 million 2007 US dollars.

Comment author: Desrtopa 31 December 2012 02:24:45AM *  5 points [-]

The proposed dollar value of a human life to the economy and the amount where a person would be indifferent to dying and being able to dispose of that amount as they saw fit in their will, or living and not receiving it, are not the same.

The value of a person's life to the government and/or economy is more like the value of that person's life to themself, minus all consumer surplus.

Comment author: CarlShulman 31 December 2012 03:00:10AM 6 points [-]

The proposed dollar value of a human life to the economy

VSL isn't a measure of value "to the economy," it's a measure of the value people place on risks to their own lives, relative to other consumption choices they could make. It maps on to things like people's willingness to pay for safety features in cars, trade wages for job risk, and so forth.

However, there is still a wedge between VSL

and the amount where a person would be indifferent to dying and being able to dispose of that amount as they saw fit in their will, or living and not receiving it, are not the same.

A person who would accept a 50% risk of death in exchange for a billion dollars (to spend on hedonism) in the event of survival could be unconcerned with the fates of her heirs or any other uses for an estate after death.

Comment author: Desrtopa 31 December 2012 03:21:41AM 7 points [-]

Thanks for the correction.

I'm a bit surprised though. Value-to-the-economy may not be a very good proxy for the value of a human life, but at least it's a coherent one, whereas I would be fairly shocked if the amount people in general were willing to pay to mitigate risks to their life turned out to be coherent on a basis of money per amount risk.

To take one of the metrics from the linked page

Another method economists can use to estimate the VSL is by simply asking people ( perhaps through questionnaires) how much they would be willing to pay for a reduction in the likelihood of dying, perhaps by purchasing safety improvements.

I'd be willing to bet good money that if you performed such a survey, and another survey in which you posited a certain number of deaths per year due to terrorism, and asked how much money tax ought to go to fighting terrorism, that the extrapolated value that they assign to mitigating terrorist risk would be inconsistent with their stated value of home safety.

Certainly people's "revealed preferences" do not appear to indicate that they're consistent according to such a metric.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit