0-5,000$
5,000-25,000$
25,000-100,000$
100,000-250,000$
250,000-1,000,000$
>1,000,000
12-09-2012 09:12 PM
#76
| |
| |
12-09-2012 09:37 PM
#77
| |
Last edited by bikes; 12-09-2012 at 09:39 PM. | |
12-09-2012 10:00 PM
#78
| |
|
|
12-10-2012 12:28 AM
#79
| |
I skipped a bunch of posts, but since this is at the bottom... | |
| |
12-10-2012 01:22 AM
#80
| |
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. | |
| |
12-10-2012 04:46 AM
#81
| |
12-10-2012 05:57 AM
#82
| |
| |
12-10-2012 06:01 AM
#83
| |
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. | |
12-10-2012 11:09 AM
#84
| |
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. | |
12-10-2012 11:15 AM
#85
| |
I'd gamble 1% death vs 99% chance the 'check engine' light on my dash goes out | |
| |
12-10-2012 11:55 AM
#86
| |
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. | |
12-10-2012 12:02 PM
#87
| |
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 | |
12-10-2012 12:13 PM
#88
| |
12-10-2012 01:28 PM
#89
| |
12-10-2012 03:36 PM
#90
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 12-10-2012 at 03:41 PM. | |
12-10-2012 03:45 PM
#91
| |
12-10-2012 03:54 PM
#92
| |
well of course you're going to regret it when the '1%' life comes... but does that outweigh the pleasure from the 99 lives? It is a pretty compelling question, and I wouldn't blame someone at all for disagreeing but right now I'm still rolling the dice (maybe I'm a little more risk-tolerant than I had previously believed?) | |
12-10-2012 04:01 PM
#93
| |
12-10-2012 04:02 PM
#94
| |
| |
12-10-2012 04:09 PM
#95
| |
| |
12-10-2012 04:57 PM
#96
| |
12-10-2012 05:03 PM
#97
| |
| |
12-10-2012 05:04 PM
#98
| |
NOW I FEEL MEAN BUT I JUST DON'T GET IT | |
12-10-2012 05:10 PM
#99
| |
There isn't a problem with just asking, because there isn't an answer to the question you're just asking. | |
| |
12-10-2012 05:42 PM
#100
| |
I liked rilla better when he had a monocle. | |
12-10-2012 05:47 PM
#101
| |
<@:^( | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 12-10-2012 at 06:01 PM. | |
12-10-2012 05:48 PM
#102
| |
|
We don't describe things as purely either pleasurable or painful; there is a whole lot of "in between" stuff that is neither and we describe that stuff as "good." We describe things like not having a headache as good but not as pleasurable |
12-10-2012 05:53 PM
#103
| |
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? | |
12-10-2012 05:53 PM
#104
| |
|
It is a point of contention I could be wrong on. But so much of what we do that brings us joy is really just because we feel bad when we don't do them. It's like how they say heroin doesn't really feel that wonderful until you realize what it's like to not be high. People kill themselves because of pain; the equivalent on the pleasure side doesn't seem to exist |
12-10-2012 05:57 PM
#105
| |
| |
12-10-2012 06:00 PM
#106
| |
12-10-2012 06:09 PM
#107
| |
| |
12-10-2012 06:17 PM
#108
| |
Isnt happiness a function of dopamine? So surely you could be happy even if suffering didnt exist. | |
12-10-2012 06:51 PM
#109
| |
12-10-2012 10:29 PM
#110
| |
| |
12-11-2012 02:03 AM
#111
| |
It's not that life has infinite value. It's that the money doesn't improve my life enough to run a 1% risk of losing my life. And as the amount you win gets larger, you quickly run into a situation of diminishing returns (of life improvement from the money). | |
12-11-2012 03:35 AM
#112
| |
Just mash the fucking button already. | |
| |
12-11-2012 03:40 AM
#113
| |
It's not that life has infinite value. It's that infinite money has a finite value. | |
| |
12-11-2012 03:45 AM
#114
| |
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. | |
| |
12-11-2012 05:32 AM
#115
| |
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? | |
| |
12-11-2012 04:18 PM
#116
| |
No amount of money in the world could have me kill my Mother. But for my own life, 1% chance... my price is $250k. | |
| |
12-11-2012 04:37 PM
#117
| |
Corollary question, 1% chance that it causes your mother to bleed to death from her vagina. | |
12-11-2012 04:42 PM
#118
| |
Nah. 0.01% chance that the entire planet explodes, yeah. | |
| |
12-11-2012 05:40 PM
#119
| |
12-12-2012 05:23 PM
#120
| |
man skall äta för att leva, inte leva för att äta | |
| |
12-12-2012 07:04 PM
#121
| |
|
dont want to playdont want to play, but if i did 600 mil and 1 push only |
12-13-2012 07:59 AM
#122
| |
| |
03-29-2013 08:14 PM
#123
| |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 03-29-2013 at 08:17 PM. | |
03-29-2013 09:06 PM
#124
| |
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. | |
03-29-2013 09:11 PM
#125
| |
|
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. |
03-29-2013 09:18 PM
#126
| |
I recognize that their actions are accepting of risk. But I don't know that they are accepting of risk. | |
Last edited by a500lbgorilla; 03-29-2013 at 09:23 PM. | |
03-29-2013 10:54 PM
#127
| |
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. | |
03-30-2013 03:08 AM
#128
| |
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. | |
| |
03-30-2013 06:05 AM
#129
| |
pretty sure dying is just a government myth to keep everyone down | |
03-30-2013 04:07 PM
#130
| |
this would be a sick reality show. id watch it | |
03-30-2013 05:57 PM
#131
| |
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. | |
03-30-2013 09:48 PM
#132
| |
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. | |
Last edited by oskar; 03-30-2013 at 09:51 PM.
| |
03-30-2013 10:01 PM
#133
| |
| |
03-31-2013 12:25 AM
#134
| |
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. | |
03-31-2013 02:30 AM
#135
| |
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. | |
| |
03-31-2013 02:52 AM
#136
| |
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? | |
03-31-2013 02:53 AM
#137
| |
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. | |
| |
03-31-2013 03:02 AM
#138
| |
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. | |
03-31-2013 03:15 AM
#139
| |
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. | |
| |
03-31-2013 04:39 AM
#140
| |
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. | |
| |
03-31-2013 06:21 AM
#141
| |
| |
03-31-2013 06:23 AM
#142
| |
| |
03-31-2013 06:34 AM
#143
| |
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. | |
03-31-2013 09:32 AM
#144
| |
We've all heard of the stories of busto football players and busto lotto winners. | |
| |
03-31-2013 03:19 PM
#145
| |
Plus the button could have germs on it. | |
03-31-2013 03:49 PM
#146
| |
Sure, that too. | |
| |
01-02-2014 10:32 PM
#147
| |
BANNED
|
I asked a friend this question but I fk'd up on the wording... |
01-03-2014 06:57 PM
#148
| |
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. | |
| |
01-03-2014 08:55 PM
#149
| |
|
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. |
01-04-2014 04:33 AM
#150
| |
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). | |