Eyal: “Should we count the death of a one day old baby expected otherwise to live many years as a far worse tragedy than the death of a college student expected to live a few less years forthwith?”
The baby’s death is more likely to cause a replacement pregnancy.
But the college student’s economic output is higher for 20 years, which will compound into the future (whether this is good or not depends on how the wealth is used, what indirect consequences it has, and so on).
I’d personally think of it this way: the difference between a young-adult and an infant dying is that the infant lives for about 20 years, both enjoying their life and costing time/money to raise. The benefit from enjoying life for 20 years is much higher than the cost of raising the child (for a middle-class American, $5-10m vs. $200k), so if I had to estimate, I would say that saving a baby rather than a 20 year old is about 1⁄4 as good as unconditionally saving a baby’s life.
Eyal: “Should we count the death of a one day old baby expected otherwise to live many years as a far worse tragedy than the death of a college student expected to live a few less years forthwith?”
I’ve wondered this before. What do people think?
The baby’s death is more likely to cause a replacement pregnancy.
But the college student’s economic output is higher for 20 years, which will compound into the future (whether this is good or not depends on how the wealth is used, what indirect consequences it has, and so on).
Also I think childhood is terrible. :)
I’d personally think of it this way: the difference between a young-adult and an infant dying is that the infant lives for about 20 years, both enjoying their life and costing time/money to raise. The benefit from enjoying life for 20 years is much higher than the cost of raising the child (for a middle-class American, $5-10m vs. $200k), so if I had to estimate, I would say that saving a baby rather than a 20 year old is about 1⁄4 as good as unconditionally saving a baby’s life.