It seems the quite interesting arguments about discount rates are marred by the political points the author wants to make. While not discounting might suggest we should regulate some areas more, there are other areas we'd want to regulate less, especially if regulation slowed the rate of growth at all.
Sounds like: better to save the life of a rich and happy person than a poor and unhappy person, because the former has more to live for. Am I reading this correctly?
If so, it seems pretty reasonable. It's a gain in total utility to save a poor person's life. It's also a gain in total utility to transform a poor person into a rich person. And saving a rich person's life can be expressed as the compound action of moving their life from unsaved to saved-and-poor, then from saved-and-poor to saved-and-rich. If you assume the utility of outcomes is ordered, then the utility of saving a rich person's life is greater than that of saving a poor person's life.
Whether in fact differences in real wealth are sufficient to overcome our true discount rate is a tougher problem. It seems to me as if middle class and above nowadays, and landowners in the past, have much more worthwhile lives (worthwhile to themselves, not to others) than the very poor. The former have a lot more time to think and to cultivate the higher parts of their souls. Whereas the very poor have to spend a much larger portion of their efforts on continuing to live. So a future of people at least that rich would be a material improvement over the median person alive today. To get any farther, though, it seems as though you'd have to assume reasonably widespread transhuman development. Which is plausible, though by no means certain.
Well, to the extent not saving the rich person would reduce total wealth. That would very much depend on the rich person, the nature of their wealth and who their heirs would be.
Yes, 2nd-order effects make it more complicated. But the simplifying assumption of no effect on other people is a reasonable one for addressing the questions we're trying to answer here. The hypothetical is meant to express something about how to value future people. If we prevent extinction, then we are saving future people and their wealth.
Abstract:
Link: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1845504
Paper (PDF): SSRN-id1845504.pdf
Via: marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2011/06/dont-apply-positive-discount-rates-to-human-lives.html