Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site watdcsu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!watnot!watdcsu!dmcanzi
From: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Newsgroups: net.columbia,net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Escape tower for shuttle orbiter?
Message-ID: <2198@watdcsu.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 25-Mar-86 22:27:23 EST
Article-I.D.: watdcsu.2198
Posted: Tue Mar 25 22:27:23 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Mar-86 04:26:07 EST
References: <9696@ucla-cs.ARPA> <588@qantel.UUCP> <2593@genat.UUCP> <12610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <11035@amdcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi)
Distribution: net
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 47
Xref: watmath net.columbia:2703 net.philosophy:4650
Summary: Money is time.

Keywords:

In article <11035@amdcad.UUCP> mike@amdcad.UUCP (Mike Parker) writes:
>In article <12610@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes:
>>   I have not touched on this kind of a trade-off, because I don't see any
>>real situation where we would have to make a choice between saving the
>>shuttle orbiter *or* the crew.  But, *if* this choice were necessary, it
>>seems clear to save the orbiter.
>
>I had sworn off posting the the net, but this just *has* to be responded 
>to. Did you intend to put a smiley after this comment, please tell me
>you did.

He may not be joking...  I came to conclusions similar to his, starting
with the premise that money is not a good standard for measuring value
(because of inflation, among other things).  People often work at
dangerous jobs for money... for that matter, if you cross the street on
your way to work you're risking your life for money.  This can only
make sense if you believe that the money is worth the risk to your
life, ie.  that the money is worth more to you than the safety of
staying on your side of the street.

The only way you can compare the value of two things as dissimilar as
money and risk of life is to somehow convert them to a common unit of
measurement.  The only common unit I could think of was the hour.  When
you work, you sacrifice the hours you spend working in return for
money.  Your hope is that the money will enable you, by buying food
etc., to extend your lifespan by more than the amount of time you've
spent working.  (This is what I mean by saying "money is time", up
there in the summary line.)

It might be reasonable to risk your life for money if the probability of
dying immediately multiplied by your remaining life expectancy is less
than the increase in lifespan you can expect if you survive your gamble.

Now, about the shuttle... somebody posted an estimate of its value at
4,000,000,000 dollars.  Suppose that the people who worked to produce
the shuttle (and all its components) were paid an average of 100
dollars/hour for the amount of their lives they've sacrificed -- an
unrealistically high estimate, I think.  This means that the shuttle
cost 40,000,000 hours of human life.  Seven astronauts, assuming they
each have 100 years of life left -- this is generous -- have a total of
only 6,100,000 hours.

So losing a shuttle is actually a greater loss of human life than
losing the astronauts on board.

-- 
David Canzi		"Offending with substance since 1985"