Comments:


BenRayfield     Sun, Nov 21, 2010  Permanent link
In this video
http://www.ted.com/talks/esther_duflo_social_experiments_to_fight_poverty.html
Esther Duflo explains some research where my COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE variable (which I explained above) is estimated as between $300 and $10000, depending on what the money is spent on to save the cheapest Human lives and if it can be repeated in other locations. That part is near the end of the video. She explains some unexpected things that have the effect of saving lives, things which are cheaper than what money is normally spent on.

What is COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE, the variable I proposed in the post above?
 http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6643/Human-Life-Worth-1000-Dollars 
BenRayfield     Sun, Jul 17, 2011  Permanent link
Pay To Not Save A Life - I Am Planning A Legal Murder

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." —Jiddu Krishnamurti

Billions of people died because of the way money flows through society, and it will continue until people change how they think about money and the value of Human life. I have a very surprising plan of how to change how people think. I'm going to kill someone without breaking any laws, and I'll invite police to the event to make sure its done legally, and I'll invite news reporters to show the world this shocking event of legal murder. Before I explain the details of this premeditated murder (which will be done legally), some research on the price of Human life:

GiveWell's research found that Human lives can be saved for less than $1000 each.
http://wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell
http://givewell.org

"Esther Duflo: Social experiments to fight poverty" says between $300 and $10000 per life saved.
http://ted.com/talks/esther_duflo_social_experiments_to_fight_poverty.html

Most people think you can't put a value on Human life, but that's not true, because "supply and demand" is accepted as the measure of value by most people, and there is a price that anyone can pay to save a life. If people thought a life was worth more than that, they would pay it and the price would increase as the cheaper lives are saved. It is an economic fact that the cheapest Human lives are worth around $1000 each. As I see it, a person is worth as much as they can help the world.

This legal murder I'm planning starts with a thought-experiment, but it will end with someone really dieing. This thought-experiment would be very hard to set up in reality, but its the idea that's important to understand before redesigning it to be easier.

The "pay to not save a life" thought-experiment:

Einstein becomes terminally sick in a country where hospitals only save you if you can pay. He has no insurance. He will die within a week if he doesn't get a million dollar operation. The sickness he has is very predictable. Everyone of the many thousands who had it died within a week without the operation, and everyone who got the operation lived until old age or something else killed them. We know "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the legal way to say it in USA) that Einstein will die within a week if he doesn't get the million dollar operation, and he will live a normal life if he gets the operation.

Gandhi is planning to pay up to the million dollars to save Einstein's life. Combining all the money everyone else is willing to pay, it totals much less than a million dollars unless Gandhi pays. Einstein will die within a week if Gandhi does not choose to save Einstein's life.

Gandhi has no legal obligation to save Einstein's life, but he plans to as soon as he can get to a bank and the hospital.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt", Einstein will live a normal life if nothing interferes with his operation.

Kaczynski pays Gandhi 10 million dollars in exchange for Gandhi not paying for Einstein's operation and not paying anyone else to or any other indirect way of getting Einstein's operation to happen, unless someone else changes their mind and decides to pay their own money for it with no influence from Gandhi (direct or indirect influence) to do that.

Within a week, Einstein dies.

Kaczynski paid for Einstein to die without breaking any laws. Its legal because Gandhi had no obligation to save Einstein's life. Kaczynski had Einstein assassinated, is an accurate statement, because Kaczynski paid for a future to occur where Einstein dies. Kaczynski does not go to jail because, similar to billions of people dieing from how the money flows in society, it is not illegal to pay somebody not to save somebody else's life.

End thought-experiment.

This is satire, but I think we should really do a more practical variation of this.

It would be very hard to find somebody about to save a life when they don't have to and also willing to not save the life for enough money, so we would probably have to set up such a situation. For example, maybe a game-show in a hospital where money is already allocated to save 10 peoples' lives who will probably die in the next week if they don't get an expensive operation, and the players of the game-show do some kind of gambling or game playing or negotiation with eachother to decide how many of those people should be saved and how much money should go to each of the players. It would work better if the players get a lot of money in exchange for the hospital patients getting a little less health. They would indirectly be paying the organizers of the game-show to not save some of those 10 lives. They would indirectly pay for murder, but that's "murder" in the reality of it, not "murder" in the legal definition of it.

I first had this idea in my "How many dollars is a Human life worth, if a vote would choose a tax to pay it?" thread on the Bitcoin forum:
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29211.0

Can you think of other ways to do this general idea of paying someone to not save a life when they don't have to?

When the world realizes its been doing this and billions have died from it already, paying for people to not save lives, people will decide to reorganize the world to stop most of that. 1 life to save millions or billions? Lets do it. That's much better than the cost of wars.

I use the least force needed to solve problems. I don't start fights. I don't argue for no reason. If someone hit me I would probably ask them why they did it instead of getting angry, but I would not let them hit me. As I see it, to save the most number of lives and improve the world most efficiently using the least force, we should kill (by paying somebody not to save the life of) an innocent person, an indirect premeditated murder without breaking any laws, with police invited to make sure its done legally, and news reporters invited to show the world how profoundly sick society really is where its legal to pay someone not to save a life and this happens to billions of people indirectly.

"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." —Jiddu Krishnamurti

Who wants to help plan a legal murder to change how people think about money and the value of Human life?
{i}Pan~     Mon, Jul 18, 2011  Permanent link
I love these kinds of thought experiments, they really make one think!

But I don't find it practical in reality.
BenRayfield     Sat, Sep 3, 2011  Permanent link
Ok as a thought experiment, the pure logic version...

This proof-by-contradiction starts with 4 assumptions that most people will agree are true. At least 1 will be proven false.

//Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).
not(legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))

//Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).
legal(not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway)))))

//Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
//if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.
existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
equals(
diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway),
not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
)
)

//If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
//For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.
forAllVar( x, ifThen(legal(x), legal(try_toward_future_where(x))) )

Those are the assumptions. Below is logic following from them.

//Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).
legal(
not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
)
AND
//If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
//For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.
forAllVar( x, ifThen(legal(x), legal(try_toward_future_where(x))) )
THEREFORE
//Its legal to cause someone not to try to buy food for starvingInnocentPersonFarAway so they die,
//because there is no responsibility to spend money to pay for the food, for example.
legal(try_toward_future_where(
not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
))

//Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
//if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.
existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
equals(
diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway),
not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
)
)
AND
//Its legal to cause someone not to try to feed starvingInnocentPersonFarAway so they die,
//because there is no responsibility to spend money to pay for the food, for example.
legal(try_toward_future_where(
not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(x))))
))
THEREFORE, BY SUBSTITUTING 1 EQUAL THING FOR ANOTHER
existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
legal(try_toward_future_where(
diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway)
)
)

existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
and(
//There exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who its legal to try to kill
legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))),
//Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).
not(legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
)
)

existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway, and(z, not(z)))

false. The proof-by-contradiction is done, proving that at least 1 of the assumptions (listed above) is false.

Which is it? Here's your choices. At most 3 can be true:

//Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).

//Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).

//Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
//if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.

//If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
//For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.

Also, the word "legal" can be replaced by "ethical" or by "not(sin)" or by "my_goals_include" etc and the proof works the same way, so theres no escape through semantics. Think I'm wrong? The rules of logic are clear. Quote the line with the error, or choose 3 of the 4 to be true.