Another one of those button questions.

[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

[wufwugy]

[swiggidy]

Wait, wait, wait...

Do I get to press the button as many times as I want at any time in my life? Say for example I press it for X and live, then I go busto, can I just press it again, whenever that may be? If this is the case, that drastically lowers my number.

I skipped a bunch of posts, but since this is at the bottom...

I think it's you can press as much as you like, but once you're wrong you die.

I'd value my life somewhere around 100k minimum, so would need a 10mill payout to consider one press. Given a higher payout I would only press once, because after the first press it would no longer be beneficial to press a second time.

Given this scenario, I decline.

[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.

[kiwiMark]

I don't know if I'm explaining it well (or if I'm even right) -- but I'm enjoying the discussion

just turned on the computer and haven't read further than this post yet (looks like heaps more posts overnight) but +1 to this bit

[kiwiMark]

Do you value your life, and do you value continuing to live beyond this moment? (I'm going to assume you answer "yes"). Once your life ends, that value drops to 0 -- by definition, there is nothing left to value.

I disagree with the bolded part, I think we're maybe narrowing in on our fundamental difference here. While I'm still alive, things can happen that affect how much I value my life (and could push that value to 0). After I'm dead, there's no I to value things so value is a totally meaningless concept -- that's something different from everything having a value of 0.

because it's expected value -- it's the value you are using to make a decision. Which assumes that you're alive right now to make that decision, and basing that decision on how things are valued to you, at that moment.

Yes, you're making the decision on how you value things right now, and yes it's about expectation.
Let's say I'm deciding between pressing a button to get $100 and one to take $100 away from me. I take my expectations of the two separate outcomes and I compare them, then choose the outcome that holds more value for me. Why do I value the +$100 more though? Let's say that you get to "Because it will make me happy" whereas the second option will not make me as happy (if you disagree with happiness being the pursuit/deciding factor in decision making then please do sing out, cos maybe that's where we're not on the same page).
So in the case of this button, if I luck on one of the 99% chances then yes I think I'll be more happy. If I hit on the 1% chance though, I won't be more happy, nor less happy, nor the same amount of happy. So you can't make a comparison.

which brings us to:

So Rilla/Kiwi -- explain your logic/reasons for why you wouldn't push the button for a ridiculously low number. How does it not boil down to, "The risk is not worth the reward," i.e. the cost of dying is too much?

I'm not sure if I can give you an answer that satisfies you, I guess my point is that it's illogical to not press the button (even for a small number) but that I still wouldn't do it. We have evolved to have an aversion to death, just like we've evolved to have a desire to copulate. If something had no aversion to death, it wouldn't stick around for very long.
That doesn't mean it's logical to have an aversion to death. If something evolved to act purely on (my/rilla's/wuf's) logic, it would have acted purely on logic and stopped living already. (and is thus impossible that it ever really came to be in the first place, but you know)

I think there are lots of things in life that we have sort of an intuitive feel for which serves us pretty well but lacks precision, and by using maths and logic in the place of feel we can increase that precision, bring us closer to the "optimal decision" or whatever that our "feel" was shooting for in the first place. I don't think that this is always the case though, I think this scenario is one where our "feel" takes us in an opposite direction to maths/logic, and the latter is not strong enough to overcome the former (for me).

[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.

[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.

[Luco]

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

[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.

[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]

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

[BankItDrew]

I have a family, and when you have dependents it changes you in ways you couldn't understand so I'll just keep hammering on that button until sweet relief comes.

hahaha awesome

[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?

[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.

[Lukie]

Most people would but then regret it when the time comes to live that one life. Pain is pain and it knows nothing other than pain. When we're happy we say life is good, when we're sad we say life is bad; the difference is that the only time anybody says the bad is worth it for the good is when they've forgotten what the bad is like. Bad things are also substantially more powerful than good things. For example, there is no counterpart to post-traumatic stress disorder. If enough bad things happen to you, your life becomes one of unfathomable suffering, but if enough good things happen to you, you feel kinda just normal.

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?)

It is logical because the absence of suffering is good while the absence of pleasure isn't bad. In death, there is nothing, but in life, there is suffering whose victims cannot fathom a justification for their suffering and want nothing more than to be freed of their suffering.

bold- philosophically I just can't agree with this. just seems like a double standard honestly. how exactly you weight everything is up for debate but if you say that an absence of suffering is good (I agree), an absence of pleasure is inherently bad.

That's in addition to those who go the other way. Even then, if we were being expansively logical we would fear technological developments because it is those that make suffering easier to create and more pervasive and perpetual. What happens when a conscious sadistic AI immortal is created and it creates immortal victims?

There is more suffering in the world today because of greater technology, and it will only get worse, all the way to a point where suffering is effectively infinite. Eventually we will be able to create immortal, conscious machines that can and will be put into perpetual suffering and completely forgotten about. The limitations of the suffering in this world are merely due to primitive tech. A dynamic consciousness by definition creates suffering and with enough tech that suffering is endless

I have read futurists like Kurzweil etc. although there is still some doubt in my mind whether or not we will be able to create true conscious AI, but for the sake of discussion, let's assume that it will happen.

what you point is beyond horrifying, no doubt, but it also leads into the ability to create a perpetual orgasmic bliss, a sort of man made heaven/hell type thing. better make sure you have your anti-malware software up to date

[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.

[a500lbgorilla]

Bad things are also substantially more powerful than good things.

I wonder.

[kiwiMark]

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.

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

[a500lbgorilla]

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

k

[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

[wufwugy]

bold- philosophically I just can't agree with this. just seems like a double standard honestly. how exactly you weight everything is up for debate but if you say that an absence of suffering is good (I agree), an absence of pleasure is inherently bad.

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

I have read futurists like Kurzweil etc. although there is still some doubt in my mind whether or not we will be able to create true conscious AI

As long as the species exists to create the tech, it will happen. Consciousness is just a chemical interaction. As soon as we can create a 3d computer chip with trillions of connectors and pathways, we'll find we've created a conscious being. Consciousness isn't really even about having a brain, but about having a really big brain with so many synapses that it creates abstractions and confuses them with reality.

what you point is beyond horrifying, no doubt, but it also leads into the ability to create a perpetual orgasmic bliss, a sort of man made heaven/hell type thing. better make sure you have your anti-malware software up to date

I know we've discussed this before, but I think that suffering is unjustifiable. One person's suffering is no more or less no matter what happens outside of that person's experience. Logically, this means there isn't any moral difference between one person suffering and a trillion. If one person died in the Holocaust, his suffering would have been the exact same as it would be when six million others also died along with him

[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]

I wonder.

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

[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.

[Renton]

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

Pretty much everyone who is saying they'd never do it for any amount.

why though? If I were selling you a lovely pair of shoes I'd agree, but since there's no way this button can ever exist, I don't see the problem with just asking. nor does the girl you asked apparently, or anybody else in this thread

Yeah idk it seems simple enough. The question is obviously only interesting if we're talking about the minimum, so logic follows that the minimum is what I'm after. If I wasn't clear about that I'm sorry.

[NightGizmo]

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.

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).

But that's a personal decision, not an absolute maxim. For someone that is poor and hates being poor, getting a large lump sum would drastically change his life for the better. So pushing the button would be a no-brainer at some dollar amount.

For me to even consider pushing the button, the question would have to be rephrased: "How much money would you have to win and how low would the risk of death need to be?" If you can control those variables, then I don't think anyone could honestly say they would never push the button.

[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.

[OngBonga]

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

[boost]

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

How quickly?

[pocketfours]

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

[TeUnit]

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

[Luco]

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

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

[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.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[a500lbgorilla]

You value your life far too much.

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

[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?

[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.

[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...

[Poker Orifice]

I asked a friend this question but I fk'd up on the wording...
I told them > 99x out of 100 it electrocutes you to death but the 1x out of 100 you get money.
THen asked them > "How much you do it for?"

They answered "One Million"

I said, "Me too!" but then I realized I'd fk'd up on the question, lol.

[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.

[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).