DanAbrams999
12-13-2004, 10:55 AM
All risk should be contextualized with a standard
scale so as to enable the prioritization of debate and
resources. Without which, “pennywise-pound foolish”
dangers abound. I propose using a risk formula that
factors in “Years of Potential Life Lost” a.k.a.
“Death Years”.
I believe all risk/dangers should be evaluated in
relation to how many years they take off your life
expectancy. So if smokers live to 65 on average and
non-smokers live to 80 and there are 10 million
smokers then smoking causes 150 million years of
death. If guns kill 30,000 people whose average age is
30 then guns cause 1.5 million years of death in
America each year. And if worldwide terrorism (not
including genocide) kills 10,000 per year whose
average age is 30 then terrorism only causes half a
million years of death.
This way we can effectively prioritize. And then we
can see what we are paying to prevent each kind of
"Death Year". I don’t mean to be flip when I mention
that $100 worth of filet mignon is a terrible use of
aid to the hungry when you could have bought 5 sacks
of grain. One of the cold obvious wonders of economics
in the market system is that a dollar is a dollar. If
we’re trying to increase happiness and ameliorate
suffering we should be using each dollar to its
highest efficacy. We should be utilitarian but
consider all of the ramifications.
Maybe we’re paying a billion dollars to prevent each
“Terrorism Death Year” but we’re only paying five
bucks to prevent each “Cancer Death Year”.
Consequently we can see that addressing certain risks
might be bad bets (when compared to using those same
resources on other problems).
Obviously, one can’t only consider current death
rates. An impending epidemic might currently only
cause one million death years but has the projected
potential to grow to 300 million death years. Such a
situation must be addressed accordingly.
I do think this somewhat Machiavellian calculus will
require some spin to become palatable to the masses.
But I am optimistic that Americans will come to
understand better uses of resources.
(Side Note: This might read as cold but I think the
“life expectancy” number should not be pushed as high
as medically possible. The goal of life shouldn’t be
to live the longest but rather to live the fullest.
Also, if we want people to live to 90 then we can’t
expect them to retire at 65 unless we expect to get a
lot more productive or reduce the standard of living.)
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my
arguments.
Thanks again and keep fighting the good fight.
Sincerely,
Dan Abrams
(Not the Dan Abrams from MSNBC)
scale so as to enable the prioritization of debate and
resources. Without which, “pennywise-pound foolish”
dangers abound. I propose using a risk formula that
factors in “Years of Potential Life Lost” a.k.a.
“Death Years”.
I believe all risk/dangers should be evaluated in
relation to how many years they take off your life
expectancy. So if smokers live to 65 on average and
non-smokers live to 80 and there are 10 million
smokers then smoking causes 150 million years of
death. If guns kill 30,000 people whose average age is
30 then guns cause 1.5 million years of death in
America each year. And if worldwide terrorism (not
including genocide) kills 10,000 per year whose
average age is 30 then terrorism only causes half a
million years of death.
This way we can effectively prioritize. And then we
can see what we are paying to prevent each kind of
"Death Year". I don’t mean to be flip when I mention
that $100 worth of filet mignon is a terrible use of
aid to the hungry when you could have bought 5 sacks
of grain. One of the cold obvious wonders of economics
in the market system is that a dollar is a dollar. If
we’re trying to increase happiness and ameliorate
suffering we should be using each dollar to its
highest efficacy. We should be utilitarian but
consider all of the ramifications.
Maybe we’re paying a billion dollars to prevent each
“Terrorism Death Year” but we’re only paying five
bucks to prevent each “Cancer Death Year”.
Consequently we can see that addressing certain risks
might be bad bets (when compared to using those same
resources on other problems).
Obviously, one can’t only consider current death
rates. An impending epidemic might currently only
cause one million death years but has the projected
potential to grow to 300 million death years. Such a
situation must be addressed accordingly.
I do think this somewhat Machiavellian calculus will
require some spin to become palatable to the masses.
But I am optimistic that Americans will come to
understand better uses of resources.
(Side Note: This might read as cold but I think the
“life expectancy” number should not be pushed as high
as medically possible. The goal of life shouldn’t be
to live the longest but rather to live the fullest.
Also, if we want people to live to 90 then we can’t
expect them to retire at 65 unless we expect to get a
lot more productive or reduce the standard of living.)
Thanks for taking the time to read and consider my
arguments.
Thanks again and keep fighting the good fight.
Sincerely,
Dan Abrams
(Not the Dan Abrams from MSNBC)