Another one of those button questions.

[d0zer]

I hope wuggy's back on the sauce cuz then there'd be an excuse for using so many words to talk that much shit

[wufwugy]

I hope wuggy's back on the sauce cuz then there'd be an excuse for using so many words to talk that much shit

ive also never read thoreau

[bikes]

ive also never read thoreau

[bikes]

fwiw i planned on pushing the button 10 times at 100k a pop.

[a500lbgorilla]

I asked a girl and she said 4 million. I asked her why 4 and not 40 and we're being silent.

[kiwiMark]

I asked a girl and she said 4 million. I asked her why 4 and not 40 and we're being silent.

You're not, like, bargaining with the button. The point is to name your lowest price in games like this. There's only one button and it has a fixed price. If that fixed price were 10 cents, her answer would be "no", if it was a dollar her answer would be "no", if it were 40 million her answer would be "yes", if it were 300 million her answer would be "yes". Somewhere between those the answer changes from "no" to "yes" and the point is finding that number, which she claims is 4 million.

[a500lbgorilla]

You're not, like, bargaining with the button. The point is to name your lowest price in games like this. There's only one button and it has a fixed price. If that fixed price were 10 cents, her answer would be "no", if it was a dollar her answer would be "no", if it were 40 million her answer would be "yes", if it were 300 million her answer would be "yes". Somewhere between those the answer changes from "no" to "yes" and the point is finding that number, which she claims is 4 million.

Why not? The button can't say no. Why should there be a 500k magic button and not 500M?

Why should anyone say yes at 4 mil if they could just as easily have 40 mil?

[kiwiMark]

Why not? The button can't say no. Why should there be a 500k magic button and not 500M?

Why should anyone say yes at 4 mil if they could just as easily have 40 mil?

I hate to be the guy to break it to you, but the button doesn't exist. The point of the exercise is, as I said, to find somebody's lowest price. If we're living in your world why does the button kill me 1% of the time when it could kill me 0% of the time?

[a500lbgorilla]

I hate to be the guy to break it to you, but the button doesn't exist. The point of the exercise is, as I said, to find somebody's lowest price. If we're living in your world why does the button kill me 1% of the time when it could kill me 0% of the time?

I said it before, if that's your goal, the question isn't right. There's a better way to ask it. If you want to force someone towards their minimum, you need a force.

[wufwugy]

[pocketfours]

1% risk is too high to be compensated by money alone. If you live in a socialist nation like I do, having money isn't strictly necessary for leading a happy life.

For a 1% chance of dying I would like a 50 year life extension, the ability to teleport around the world freely and the ability to read other people's minds.

[Renton]

It seems like one major school of thought exhibited in this thread is that life has infinite value and 1% of infinity is still infinity. The flaw in that logic is revealed, however, when we lower the odds. 0.0001% of infinity is still infinity, yet most of us are willing to take such gambles without losing much sweat.

[d0zer]

It seems like one major school of thought exhibited in this thread is that life has infinite value and 1% of infinity is still infinity. The flaw in that logic is revealed, however, when we lower the odds. 0.0001% of infinity is still infinity, yet most of us are willing to take such gambles without losing much sweat.

I suppose the logical thing to do would be to come up with a probability for dying on an average day, and compare that with how much you make on an average day, and then scale both those numbers up proportionally to 1%. Someone with more time and motivation than me, get on this plz.

However, it still doesn't factor in the diminishing returns of money to life satisfaction, or the poor life BRM involved. If you already have a life you love, you're risking it all for a reward that may not be as great as you imagine it to be.

[kiwiMark]

It seems like one major school of thought exhibited in this thread is that life has infinite value and 1% of infinity is still infinity.

I'm interested to see which posts you think belong to this school of thought

[Lukie]

It seems like one major school of thought exhibited in this thread is that life has infinite value and 1% of infinity is still infinity. The flaw in that logic is revealed, however, when we lower the odds. 0.0001% of infinity is still infinity, yet most of us are willing to take such gambles without losing much sweat.

90-95% of poker players are long term losers, and I'm guessing there is even a selection bias involved in that even an average poker player is better at math/abstract reasoning than an average person.

[Luco]

I'd gamble 1% death vs 99% chance the 'check engine' light on my dash goes out

[Pascal]

If you approach it from the other side - "how much would someone have to pay you to kill you" - it's kinda more obvious about the problems with quantifying numbers for this question. Dying trying to get the money, regardless of how much better your life would become the times you do get the extra money, means not living (obviously) which sucks way, way more than getting a ton of money could ever make up for IMO

[kiwiMark]

NOW I FEEL MEAN BUT I JUST DON'T GET IT

[a500lbgorilla]

There isn't a problem with just asking, because there isn't an answer to the question you're just asking.

If you wanted there to be answer, you'd need to ask it better.

So in lieu of an answer, we're allowed to answer and defend and feel and attack however we'd like.

If anyone answers X, why not X+1? Why not X-1?

The question isn't open ended, it's empty ended.

[JKDS]

I liked rilla better when he had a monocle.

[a500lbgorilla]

<@:^(

I liked JKids better when he was JKDS

[boost]

Wuf, do you think there's a such thing as pleasure in lieu of the existence of suffering? I mean, is it a relative scale? Does contentedness become suffering when there is no suffering on the spectrum?

[wufwugy]

Wuf, do you think there's a such thing as pleasure in lieu of the existence of suffering? I mean, is it a relative scale? Does contentedness become suffering when there is no suffering on the spectrum?

I really don't know. There is definitely flux and adaptation to degrees though.

[boost]

I really don't know. There is definitely flux and adaptation to degrees though.

I guess what I'm wondering is if you're on your way to the top of a tall clock tower...

[wufwugy]

I guess what I'm wondering is if you're on your way to the top of a tall clock tower...

Me? No. If I was gonna kill myself it would have been a long ass time ago

[JKDS]

Isnt happiness a function of dopamine? So surely you could be happy even if suffering didnt exist.

[boost]

Isnt happiness a function of dopamine? So surely you could be happy even if suffering didnt exist.

mm, good point, however our dopamine receptors may need to be tweaked.

[OngBonga]

Just mash the fucking button already.

[rong]

It's not that life has infinite value. It's that infinite money has a finite value.

[OngBonga]

Just think Dan, if you mashed the button enough times, you wouldn't have to get up at 8am while people like me are deciding whether to go to bed or grind it through the day.

[rong]

To demonstrate my point about infinite money having a finite value, what amount of money would you need to kill your mum? How much to slaughter your whole family?

And you can't say its impossible to value those things as they can certainly be ranked in order of value. Ie say, I'd rather just kill my father than kill all of my siblings and cousins, or w/e.

The fact is that for most sane people there are things in life more valuable than money. For some of us our own lives fall in to that category, for others it doesn't.

[OngBonga]

No amount of money in the world could have me kill my Mother. But for my own life, 1% chance... my price is $250k.

[Renton]

Corollary question, 1% chance that it causes your mother to bleed to death from her vagina.

[boost]

Corollary question, 1% chance that it causes your mother to bleed to death from her vagina.

How quickly?

[OngBonga]

Nah. 0.01% chance that the entire planet explodes, yeah.

[pocketfours]

man skall äta för att leva, inte leva för att äta

[Luco]

man skall äta för att leva, inte leva för att äta

True, but have you tried cinnamon swirls? Sustenance isn't everything :P

[TeUnit]

dont want to play, but if i did 600 mil and 1 push only

[a500lbgorilla]

You get to choose to press a button. 1 out of 100 times, the button electrocutes you to death. 99 out of 100 times, the button dispenses money.

You can press the button as many times as you want. What is your price?

I wouldn't press the button. I'd rather just ride it out. Plus, there'll never be a button, so why am I trying to figure out when I'd click?

[Renton]

It's just an exercise to estimate your own value of life. There will never be a button but there will certainly be times in your life where you will be given the choice to take survival risks for certain benefits. People who enjoy motorcycles are accepting a very large risk of a nasty and most likely painful death at a young age, but they love riding so much that they are fine with that risk. Same for people who smoke cigarettes, eat excessive amounts of fried food, or take part in copious amounts of unprotected sex with multiple partners.

[a500lbgorilla]

It's just an exercise to estimate your own value of life. There will never be a button but there will certainly be times in your life where you will be given the choice to take survival risks for certain benefits. People who enjoy motorcycles are accepting a very large risk of a nasty and most likely painful death at a young age, but they love riding so much that they are fine with that risk. Same for people who smoke cigarettes, eat excessive amounts of fried food, or take part in copious amounts of unprotected sex with multiple partners.

I recognize that their actions are accepting of risk. But I don't know that they are accepting of risk.

People ride motorcycles because they enjoy it. People who wreck and survive, still enjoy riding motorcycles. Risk isn't really evaluated in their approach or their return.

Same with cigs, and fatties, and unprotected sex-fiends.

edit Ask a cigarette smoker what they think of the risks of that cigarette they're smoking.

They're in it for the nicotine, not for the larger evaluation of its risks versus its rewards

[Savy]

I'd do it for £300k. That's enough to sort me out for life if I'm sensible and probably my parents too who realistically are going to be the only ones who go through a real negative experience due to my death.

[Renton]

Yes there are degrees to which such risk is implicit and unclear. Clarifying it by saying 1% chance of death does make a big difference. While I understand how a smoker could ignore the costs of smoking, I truly fail to see how anyone who rides motorcycles is blind to that risk. I think almost everyone knows someone who was horribly maimed or killed in a motorcycle accident in their prime. Sort of hard to ignore that.

[rong]

Man I'm one fucked up specimen. I'm smart enough to comprehend the risks and value my own life very highly, yet I've had lots of unprotected sex, smoked on and off for 15+ yrs, been on motorbikes (well mopeds, but in 3rd world countries where its dodgy as fuck) and took lots of recreational drugs. I guess I'm just stupid and lucky. What an awesome combination.

[kiwiMark]

pretty sure dying is just a government myth to keep everyone down

[gabe]

this would be a sick reality show. id watch it

[surviva316]

this would be a sick reality show. id watch it

If it were a reality TV show, they would have to turn the button into a massive (I'm talking like 10 tons) 100-barrel revolver with one chamber loaded. There can be varying effects that the empty chambers would have, like booming sound effects, or a shockwave that surprises the contestant enough for them to think they're dead, or other such things, so that when the dust clears, the audience gets to watch a man weeping mercilessly in a chair full of his own fecal matter as he admits to his widow-to-be (so he thinks) of the week-long dalliance he once had with their old cleaning lady before he fired her.

10 out of 10 people would scoff in disgust at the concept, yet the ratings would soar.

[oskar]

1/100 is just way too high for my comfort. I am down with the concept. Every time you cross a road you take a 1/x chance you'll get rolled over by somelthing, and you take a calculated risk, but those are 1/1,000,000+ shots. For better odds I'd have to think about it, but 1/100 is just a very obvious no for me.
* I voted 1,000,000+ because obviously I'd have to do it for 10,000,000,000+ to cure malaria or whatnot.

[Savy]

1/100 is just way too high for my comfort. I am down with the concept. Every time you cross a road you take a 1/x chance you'll get rolled over by somelthing, and you take a calculated risk, but those are 1/1,000,000+ shots. For better odds I'd have to think about it, but 1/100 is just a very obvious no for me.
* I voted 1,000,000+ because obviously I'd have to do it for 10,000,000,000+ to cure malaria or whatnot.

You value your life far too much.

[a500lbgorilla]

You value your life far too much.

If you value your life at all, I wonder. You can't trade your life.

[Renton]

Also, one can view this as trading risks for other risks. Someone who works in construction 50 hours a week for $30,000 a year should snap push the button for a pretty low amount (maybe like 300,000 or less) and quit his job. He's be choosing a 1% straight up death risk in place of an aggregate similar death risk over time (read: health risk). He could use the money to invest in himself to work in a field that has less detriment to health and more reward for his time.

[supa]

Also, one can view this as trading risks for other risks. Someone who works in construction 50 hours a week for $30,000 a year should snap push the button for a pretty low amount (maybe like 300,000 or less) and quit his job. He's be choosing a 1% straight up death risk in place of an aggregate similar death risk over time (read: health risk). He could use the money to invest in himself to work in a field that has less detriment to health and more reward for his time.

This is only true from a statistical point of view. Most construction related deaths are due to stupidity by the worker. Between OSHA and insurance companies it's getting almost impossible to get a job done without an abundance of ppe (personal protective equipment). Most deaths and injuries happen because the inflicted worker decided not to follow the safety guidelines put in place to keep him safe in the first place.

I see it all the time on my jobs. Some guy who's working 30' above a concrete slab will put on a harness but fail to attach his lanyard to whatever piece of structure there is because it's easier to perform his task without being tied off. The company has supplied him with the proper ppe but he has decided not to use it. The risk only exists because he decided to make it exist.

[a500lbgorilla]

Also, one can view this as trading risks for other risks. Someone who works in construction 50 hours a week for $30,000 a year should snap push the button for a pretty low amount (maybe like 300,000 or less) and quit his job. He's be choosing a 1% straight up death risk in place of an aggregate similar death risk over time (read: health risk). He could use the money to invest in himself to work in a field that has less detriment to health and more reward for his time.

How would he be making a mistake by refusing to push the button? By failing to maximize his expectation of cash in his lifetime?

[rong]

Are you suggesting we lose 0.1% of our construction workforce every year to work related deaths? I can't imagine that's even close to being right.

[Renton]

No but its not hard to imagine a life of hard labor lowering one's health and life expectancy though. And of course the risk of injury or death on the job is present, but its definitely nowhere near one percent. One also needs to calculate the value of life under different conditions. If i work my ass off in a factory for 40 years and fuck up my back, would the 20 years after that be worth as much as the 20 years before? How about the value of life of someone who doesn't have to work and can travel wherever they want because they pushed the button?

[Renton]

If it weren't clear by my "(read: health risk)" point, I'm considering detriment to health to be comparable to risk of death. I'm not talking about the chance of a cinderblock falling on someone's head, although that risk is there too.

[supa]

Yeah, it takes a pretty fucking stupid person to walk under an area where there's a chance of cinderblocks falling on his head. Which is really all I'm saying, detriment to health doesn't have to be as big a concern as it is, we just need people to stop being fucking idiots.

I understand what you're getting at but my point is you have to factor for stupidity. Someone who works smart will most likely not die on the job whereas someone less intelligent probably should hit the button for a lesser amount.

[rong]

There's still no amount of money that would make me press the button. But if my circumstances changed their could very easily be. If I lost my job and was about to lose the roof over my family's heads I'm sure I'd consider it, or if I for some reason expected my life to be shit based on the path I'm currently walking or if I needed the money for some kind of emergency, but that aside I'm not pressing it for any amount.

And your argument that for everyone there is an amount of money that suddenly tips the scales in favour of pressing is flawed due to the diminishing marginal utility of money which in fact hits 0 pretty damn fast.

You may argue that the actions of wealthy individuals disprove that point. But I'd disagree.

[Renton]

Well not really maximizing cash, but the point is he'd be taking similar risks with his life spread over a longer period of time with much less reward. Life isn't about maximizing cash but certainly we need cash to be happy to an extent. Having more cash allows us to do more things that we want to do and less things that we don't want to do. If everyone had all the cash they needed there would be no one to clean shit off toilet bowls or to compact garbage at landfills.

[a500lbgorilla]

Well not really maximizing cash, but the point is he'd be taking similar risks with his life spread over a longer period of time with much less reward. Life isn't about maximizing cash but certainly we need cash to be happy to an extent. Having more cash allows us to do more things that we want to do and less things that we don't want to do. If everyone had all the cash they needed there would be no one to clean shit off toilet bowls or to compact garbage at landfills.

We've all heard of the stories of busto football players and busto lotto winners.

There's a non-zero chance that he is no where near as frugal and sustained in his spending between the two scenarios and the impact of a lump sum may be considered zero or even adverse.

A risk that isn't reflected in your assessment.

The money also makes him prey. The fattest zebra in the plains.

And these are risks that likely wouldn't be assessed by anyone presented with the button.

[Savy]

Well not really maximizing cash, but the point is he'd be taking similar risks with his life spread over a longer period of time with much less reward. Life isn't about maximizing cash but certainly we need cash to be happy to an extent. Having more cash allows us to do more things that we want to do and less things that we don't want to do. If everyone had all the cash they needed there would be no one to clean shit off toilet bowls or to compact garbage at landfills.

Has it not been shown that money increases happiness up until the point where you don't have to worry about having enough money to live? After that it makes no difference at all.

I suppose I can now better codify my difficulty with this question. It reminds me of that old thought experiment on free will - Have you ever driven down the road and imagined driving into on coming traffic? Would you ever do it? No, because you're not in control.
[/COLOR]

This is actually a fairly normal thing apparently and has absolutely nothing to do with actually wanting to do it. When people actually want to do something like that they can. That's why people can commit suicide.

[Renton]

Has it not been shown that money increases happiness up until the point where you don't have to worry about having enough money to live? After that it makes no difference at all.

I don't see how this could be definitively shown. It's probably more of a diminishing returns formula then a rising line that just levels off instantly at a specific number. And anyway a million dollars is not enough to give your family a decent standard of living for the next 50 years, so I think even if you apply your logic to this, the max efficacy would be pretty far in excess of 1 million (the top bracket given in the poll).

[Savy]

I don't see how this could be definitively shown. It's probably more of a diminishing returns formula then a rising line that just levels off instantly at a specific number. And anyway a million dollars is not enough to give your family a decent standard of living for the next 50 years, so I think even if you apply your logic to this, the max efficacy would be pretty far in excess of 1 million (the top bracket given in the poll).

I wasn't saying it had been definitely shown. I was saying that it had been shown in the sense everything along those lines is shown in that it has quite a bit of evidence to support the hypothesis. It's also not about long term living. Who the fuck worries about 50 years into the future. Most people aren't looking much further than a couple of years.

I could live off a million for the rest of my life easy. I could buy a house, put the rest in a bank and live off the interest. Wouldn't even be hard to do. So I'm not sure where you got the idea it wouldn't last you 50 years.

I'd do it for £300k. That's enough to sort me out for life if I'm sensible and probably my parents too who realistically are going to be the only ones who go through a real negative experience due to my death.

Came to around this number again having forgot what I said in the first place. Having a house paid for, decent car and like at least 20k in the bank would make life so easy. Get a job you enjoy doing and just chill and enjoy life.

[kiwiMark]

Plus the button could have germs on it.

[a500lbgorilla]

Sure, that too.

Or how can we even know that we fully understand the instructions? The Devil and his fine-print... trick me once, shame on you...

[a500lbgorilla]

I suppose I can now better codify my difficulty with this question. It reminds me of that old thought experiment on free will - Have you ever driven down the road and imagined driving into on coming traffic? Would you ever do it? No, because you're not in control.

That's all fine and well, but sitting here behind a keyboard I can visualize and rationalize both sides. I believe with enough determination, I could turn that wheel. That I could make moves and decisions which put suicide as a palatable option and commit myself to the decision. Or I can toss aside the assertion all the same because basically seeing out of my own eyes is too consistently awesome to abandon and I simply won't. Whichever answer you wish to put forward is an empty choice of show because both answers lack the quintessential element - a good sanity check. Something independent of your own thinking that lets you know your answer isn't full of it. Not something that tells you that you could be right, but something that tells you you're likely not wrong.

So if I was to honestly answer the question about driving into on coming traffic, I would have to say, "no, if I got in my car right now and went for a drive, I'm wearing a seatbelt and holding defensive driving in the front of my mind."

Similarly with this question, I can't see any reasonable way that you could come up with a 'correct' answer because I can't see anything that would sensibly tell you that that answer is likely not wrong. If you put a button in front of me and somehow convinced me it was a 99:1 millionaire:kill button, I couldn't truly decide which action I would correctly take. So when Renton says, "So the conclusion is that the value of human life is strongly tied to the amount of money and human capital one has." I just can't help but twist inside thinking, "If you were wrong, how would you know? Certainly not by thinking about magic buttons."

I was off it March of last year though. Dunno why, I recall that being a pretty sweet time.

[boost]

You think you can buy a house and live off the interest from the remained of a million dollars until your croak? Can you teach me your magical maths, or introduce me to your overly generous banker?

[Savy]

You think you can buy a house and live off the interest from the remained of a million dollars until your croak? Can you teach me your magical maths, or introduce me to your overly generous banker?

What would you say was a decent amount of interest on a savings account?

300k on a house
700k in the bank

700k/(12*50) is over £1000 a month for 50 years.

I don't even begin to think that'd be hard to live off. If we had it in a bank with the interest on it too it'd probably add a few quid to it too.

I could also spend much less than 300k on a house in all honesty. Although when I sell the house when I get to a ripe old age and move to somewhere smaller it'll be a nice cash injection into my pocket.

[boost]

I'm not sure how we suddenly began talking in monopoly money instead of good old USD, but even still, you're neglecting inflation, house upkeep, property tax, etc.

I think you could make such a plan work-- but you'd have to be pretty frugal, and buying a house is almost certainly the wrong move. You need liquidity and flexibility if your plan is to work. You can't let yourself get stuck somewhere.

[micalupagoo]

this would make a great reality tv show lol

I'd press that button lots if a beer came out every time;P
talk about drinking yourself to death

[OngBonga]

Aw man I could live off $1m for life pretty easy, what the fuck are you people smoking? Caviar?

$1m is around £600k. I buy three houses - one nice place in the country for £200k, where I'm gonna live, and then two town properties at around £120k to rent out. I could get £600 a month from each of those properties at current prices, and I have no rent/mortgage payments to make myself. Factor in that both of my properties should increase in value at a rate above inflation, and I think I'm pretty sorted. I still have £160k, plus £1200 a month income, plus two houses I can sell if things get tight.

[boost]

Aw man I could live off $1m for life pretty easy, what the fuck are you people smoking? Caviar?

$1m is around £600k. I buy three houses - one nice place in the country for £200k, where I'm gonna live, and then two town properties at around £120k to rent out. I could get £600 a month from each of those properties at current prices, and I have no rent/mortgage payments to make myself. Factor in that both of my properties should increase in value at a rate above inflation, and I think I'm pretty sorted. I still have £160k, plus £1200 a month income, plus two houses I can sell if things get tight.

I'm not saying it can't be done-- but I am saying that you've just demonstrated that you wouldn't be the one to do it.

[bikes]

wtf are you people smoking living the rest of your life off a milli?

[Renton]

you could certainly live for 50 years in many places in the world. Just not in any big city or in europe or australia. 1 mil is enough to live in latin america, asia, some rural parts of the united states, I think.

[boost]

you could certainly live for 50 years in many places in the world. Just not in any big city or in europe or australia. 1 mil is enough to live in latin america, asia, some rural parts of the united states, I think.

Oh, yeah, definitely; and you could live a great life, far from that of a pauper. However, it wouldn't be the life most people envision when they think "millionaire."

With that being said, it's kinda besides the point if drastic life changes are necessitated. With adequate knowledge, and barring any catastrophic injury, a person could live a long life with zero or near zero income. But then maybe that is the point of this sort of hypothetical-- to inspire you to think how far along the Kaczynski-Onassis spectrum you'd need to be to never have to work again.