RoR: Forum

In Bjorn Lomborg's book: The Skeptical Environmentalist, collectivist premises/assumptions are challenged by submitting them to the harsh light of reason and science. This type of thing can be done against the current socialist administrators of the US government. Here are numbers pulled from graphs located between the pages of 337 and 341:

What if a million people did that?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact:
If a million people drank a pint of wine, then one life would be lost (due to cirrhosis of the liver).

Upshot:
Government programs should be put into place in order to limit the scope of wine drinking such that only 999,999 of us have it within our power to consume another pint of wine in our lives. This is true because if such programs were put into place, then one life would be saved. We can refer to such a federal endeavor as the Ministry of Wine Consumption in order to make it sound acceptable or professional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact:
If a million people each travel 10 miles by bicycle, then one life would be lost (due to an accident).

Upshot:
Government programs should be put into place in order to limit the scope of bike riding. This is true because if such programs were put into place, then one life would be saved. We can refer to such a federal endeavor as the Ministry of Get-Back-in-Your-Cars-Where-it-is-Safer- ... -You-Fools, though this doesn't have the same ring to it as the Ministry of Wine. And it doesn't alter the fact that bike riding is 30 times more dangerous per mile than is driving a car.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact:
If a million people live for 2 months in a brick or stone building, then one life would be lost (due to cancer caused by natural radioactivity).

Upshot:
Government programs should be put into place to make it impossible for people to live in brick or stone buildings for more than 59 days in a row. This is true because if such programs were put into place, then one life would be saved. We can refer to such a federal endeavor as the Ministry of Nationwide Relocation, and we will rotate people into such buildings and then back out, 6 or 7 times a year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact:
If a million people drank city water in Miami for a year, then one life would be lost (due to cancer caused by chloroform).

Upshot:
People in Miami should not be allowed to drink water. To be more precise, they should not be allowed to drink water from the municipal water supply for a whole year. This is true because if this mitigated "water ban" were put into place and then, of course, expensively enforced -- then one life would be saved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the cost of saving one life-year (taking an action that results in an extra year of life for a single individual)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Installing seat belts for passengers in school buses

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$2.8 Million

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$224 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Radionucleotide emission control at elemental phosphorus plants

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$9.2 Million

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$736 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Strengthening buildings in earthquake-prone areas

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$18 Million

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$1.44 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Arsenic emission control at glass manufacturing plants

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$51 Million

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$4 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Radiation emission standard for nuclear power plants

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$180 Million

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$14.4 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fancy New Federal Program:
Benzene emission control at rubber tire manufacturing plants

Cost for each single year of life saved:
$20 Billion

Cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$1.6 Trillion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is our Return-on-Investment for continuing to fund various federal agencies?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Program:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Program's cost for each single year of life saved:
$23,000

Program's cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$1,840,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Program:
Consumer Product Safety Commission

Program's cost for each single year of life saved:
$68,000

Program's cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$5,440,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Program:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Program's cost for each single year of life saved:
$78,000

Program's cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$6,240,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Program:
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Program's cost for each single year of life saved:
$88,000

Program's cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$7,040,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Program:
Environmental Protection Agency

Program's cost for each single year of life saved:
$7,600,000

Program's cost to save 80 years of life (the rough life expectency of a single person):
$608,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

This last shows how unproductive it is for human beings to have an Environmental Protection Agency, because such things cost so much before they provide any benefit in terms of human life. These data were from 1993, when things were cheaper. In today's terms, it may be costing us more than $100 million in taxpayer dollars, funneled to the EPA, in order to afford just a single individual with just a single "extra" year of life. That's a terrible return-on-investment. If individualists pooled their money in order to create a common or public good, then they would never invest in such a thing -- because it is a terribly stupid and wasteful thing to do. There are a million better things to do with your money.

Ed

Post 1

Tuesday, February 19, 2013 - 11:51pm

If we put black male teens under detention, we could reduce the homicide rate, which is very high among this particular group. For example, in 2010, the homicide rate for black male teens was 51.7 per 100,000, more than 22 times higher than the rate for white male teens (2.4 per 100,000), and almost three times higher than for the next highest group, Hispanic males (17.9 per 100,000).

So would Vice-President Biden approve of this policy? After all, it would save lives. Of course, he would object on the grounds that, despite saving lives, such a policy would violate civil rights.

So, I take it that in his mind respecting people's rights (including the right to bear arms) would take precedence over saving people's lives. Or would it?

Post 2

Wednesday, February 20, 2013 - 4:41am

"It is better that ten guilty people go free than that one innocent person be executed." Why ten and not 15? I understand the symbolism, but it is a quantity and suggests that justice is measurable, or measurable by that standard.

Following the Sandy Hook horror the value of innocent lives was considered relative to the Second Amendment.

The numbers vary over time, but generally, we always lose 30,000 to 40,000 people per year in automobile accidents. The deaths per 100,000 have fallen as the population has increased, but the basic fact is constant. Similarly, in Sweden the number of people incarcerated is more or less constant, despite increased population and alternatives to imprisonment.

Mortality statistics from the National Safety Council should make us wary of letting children jump on furniture. In 2007 the totals were 118,000 accidental deaths from all exposures for a cost of $700 billion. (National Safety Council here.)

Driving your own car is far more dangerous than riding public transportation. We estimate our own risks based on our feelings of competency at driving. Obviously, many people are over-confident. Still, you do have some control. As they say in aviation: "There are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots."

Post 3

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 12:38pm

If you take benzene emission at tire manufacturing plants and you regulate it long enough, you will eventually save one year of someone's life -- but the kicker is that the regulation will cost $20 Billion. Let's say you had a goal to create a certain amount of good in the world. Let's say you wanted to save 100 years of life by regulating benzene emissions. It's really a pretty meager goal, because there are easy actions we can take right now to save 100 years of life. Just look at the other, cheaper examples in my post above. Okay, let's settle on the 100 life-years and proceed toward saving them. How much would it cost?

The answer is $2000 Billion, or $2 Trillion. Now, if we accidentally vote for a regulations bill which includes this action which costs $2 trillon, and if federal revenue is only $2.5 trillion -- then 80% of revenue would be diverted toward this regulation, leaving things like Social Security and Defense and whatever without any real money. On a smaller scale that is not so unmistakably clear as being total and utter nonsense (i.e., benzene emission control is total nonsense), this same type of action is what the current administration of our government is doing. They are taking actions they "like" (preference) without running a proper risk-cost/benefit analysis.

The 4 main reasons to do things are because:

1) there is less (or a modulated) risk
2) there is less cost
3) there is more benefit
4) there is a subjective, often whimsical, personal preference to do so

Ed

Post 4

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 1:37pm

I would go further.
I would partake in certain actions that shortened my life by a few years if my overall happiness,fulfillment and zest for life were increased dramatically. If the alternative is an extended "safer" life that is rendered miserable due to policies that stifled and hampered my right to happiness and liberty.

Post 5

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 3:28pm

Jules,

I have to agree with you on that. It's really, really hard -- and oftentimes impossible -- for one person to know what's best for another person. Statistically, when what you think is best for you is at odds with what other people think is best for you, then you are going to be right about yourself more than 50% of the time. In other words, most of the time where other people chime in in order to tell you what to do with your life, they are wrong. There are some special cases wherein you just tried heroin and you are absolutely sure that the very best thing in the world for you is more heroin, even if you lose all your family and everyone you love, etc. Or, for example, if you are 5 years old, and you want to be able to try to ride a raging bull at your uncle's ranch. But now I digress.

:-)

For some people, for an example, it may be good to smoke cigarettes -- yet, if you ask everyone, most (>50% of) people would say it's not good to smoke cigarettes (citing lung cancer or whatever as a deal-breaker). But if someone was advanced in age and also had Parkinson's disease*, and was already a smoker, it might be in their best personal interests to continue to do so (rather than listening to self-aggrandized public health advocates). Now, I'm talking about what's statistically in the best interest of Parkinson's-diseased smokers, and the point is that most people would advocate what is opposite to what is usually in their best interest. I'm not even talking about personal preference yet.

If you have a personal preference for something, it might be in your best interest even if it shortens the length of your life. This was at issue in the Terri Schiavo case (apologies if I mis-spelled her name). It is at issue in ObamaCare. It is at issue with bodybuilders who load their systems up with androgenic/anabolic agents. It is at issue with skydivers and race car drivers and that one Australian guy on TV who was killed by a stingray while swimming close to it for an adrenaline rush. It is also at issue with people who like to cross the street a lot in order to go to and fro'.

The question of whether you should be able to live your life how you want to is on the discussion table now, whereas before in this country it was something like: "Take what you want and pay through the nose for it if you have to, but just be responsible enough to accept that you are the one who is going to have to pay the price for your personal choices" (or something like that).

:-)

Ed

*Supportive Research:
Nicotine as a potential neuroprotective agent for Parkinson's disease.

A genetic basis for the variable effect of smoking/nicotine on Parkinson's disease.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 2/24, 3:32pm)

Post 6

Sunday, February 24, 2013 - 4:36pm

"Take whatever you want, said God, then pay for it."

____________________________ Old Spanish Proverb

That really speaks to individual initiative... tightly tied to individual responsibility.

Post 7

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 12:59pm

Reminds me of Eminent Domain...

Post 8

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 1:34pm

Kyle, I think you are reading it the wrong way, or making a joke. Eminent Domain would be "Steal what land you want, says the politician to the bureaucratic, then pay them something to make it look fair." The Spanish proverb is attempting to highlight the fact that as individuals we make choices, but that we can't escape the consequences.

Post 9

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 2:23pm

Perhaps it should read:

"Take what you want and truly pay for it."

or

"If it does not violate individual rights, then take what you want and pay for it."

:-)

Ed

Post 10

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 4:45pm

Steve,

It wasn't a joke. I'm a very serious boy, er, man. A very serious man.

I did misinterpret it. I took the word "pay" to mean "give money", its popular meaning, when it was meant to be taken as "accept the consequences".

The quote reminds me of a comment Ted Keer occasionallly made. Something along the lines of: "Violence is always an option, so long as you are willing to accept the consequences".

Post 11

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 6:19pm

Kyle,

It was intended to mean those choices we all make as we go through life - little choices, big choices, but it had nothing to do with any choice involving being violent.

It was just a pithy way of saying everyone decides what to do. That like it or not they are the only captain on their ship. And then they will experience the consequences of each choice - because life is real and actions have consequences. Choose well so your actions bring you good things.

It is simple concept, but when deeply understood it greatly enhances the focus a person makes on not just where they want to go, who they want to be, what they want to achieve, but on the what the actions contemplated will actually result in.

Someone who takes that to heart and practices it for a period of time is very unlikely to ever again be heard saying, "I never thought that would happen! I just wanted...." See the disconnect between the "I wanted" and the "Whoa, how'd that happen?"

When people don't own their choices, they get surprised by where they end up. Some people want others to choose for them, or to pretend that they have no choices. Some people are full of wants, but short on actions. They are afraid to have a choice that flows on to become an action. Their life will shallow and unrewarding. That's the cost they pay for choosing not to choose.

I also like the boldness implied in "Take what you want..." We shouldn't be timid about experiencing a rich life. How many people settle for 2nd or 3rd best in their choices? Or worse, never even pursue what they are passionate about at all?

Post 12

Monday, February 25, 2013 - 8:37pm