it's not just an issue of valuing human life less; it's a question of
cost-benefit analysis, where it seems natural (but is irrational) to value
one type of loss of life higher than another.
for instance, in 2004, 42636 people died in traffic accidents in the US.
this probably far more than died in terror attacks of all sorts any where
in the world, ever. could traffic accidents be stopped? yes, probably -
require tamper-proof speed governors in all cars that are radio-controlled
by speed limit postings; install lateral radars that control the speed and
steering wheel, to reduce collision risk; line cars with huge foam rubber
pads; require much lower speed limits; etc. have sensors report to the
police any violations of the safety system by drivers, and punish
violations heavily.
would this cost a lot, in money, time, inconvenience, and loss of liberty?
yes, certainly. would it save a lot of lives? probably. compared to the
cost, would this save more lives than the enormous costs (and few lives
saved) by "anti-terror" measures? yes, probably. but everyone takes traffic
deaths as a fact of life and air terror as something much more scary, so
it's more socially acceptable to go to ridiculous extremes to prevent the
latter rather than the former. it also makes people feel patriotic talking
about "national security".
At 18:45 16/08/2006, sastry wrote:
On Wed August 16 2006 10:10 pm, Vinayak Hegde wrote:
> In India, the cost of human life is less as we have more people. Obviously
> the more of something you have the less you value it.
