Human lives are worth a negative amount on average, and the more of them die the better. 6 (42.9%)
$0 per life saved (choose this if you are against redirecting existing tax money for this) 2 (14.3%)
$1 per life saved 2 (14.3%)
$3 per life saved 0 (0%)
$10 per life saved 1 (7.1%)
$30 per life saved 0 (0%)
$100 per life saved 1 (7.1%)
$300 per life saved 1 (7.1%)
$1,000 per life saved 0 (0%)
$3,000 per life saved 0 (0%)
$10,000 per life saved 0 (0%)
More than $10,000 (you do realize the price is less than $1000, right?) 1 (7.1%)
Total Voters: 14
6 out of 14 voting Human life has negative value is a little better (the last vote was $0), but the general plan (not the details, maybe it could be a game show done in a hospital where we save only a few extra out of 10 possible lives depending on how much money the players decide to keep for themselves, for example) I described in my last post still needs to be done by someone if even 1 out of every million people think Human life has negative value, since it would save many millions of lives at least as a result of getting the world to admit its organized in a way that does this kind of thing all the time but so indirectly nobody gets blamed for it. The world needs a specific example where who pays to kill and who dies are not anonymous and its completely legal (with police offered an invitation to watch to make sure its legal).
When the world realizes its been doing this and billions have died from it already, paying for people to not save lives, people will decide to reorganize the world to stop most of that. But first they would need to admit its happening, and 1 life is a small price to pay for that, as proven by your vote of how much 1 life is worth (I'm the only one who voted for more than $300), or you could also interpret it to mean the supply and demand decides, and in that case it would be a little less than $1000 as researched by
http://givewell.org Either way its not enough.
They think I'm crazy?
"It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." --Jiddu Krishnamurti
In this thread... "What percent of Bitcoins are used for unethical things"
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24964.0...and its paired thread... "What percent of Dollars are used for unethical things (compare to Bitcoin poll)"
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=24970.0..I said
I created these 2 polls/threads (one about bitcoins and one about dollars) to understand how people think, not because I care specificly about the ethics of bitcoins or dollars. I created a thread
http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=23054.0 called "A Compromise To Avoid World War 3", a very serious subject important to the future of the Human species, and most people got off subject, distracted by the details instead of the possibility (a high chance in my opinion) that we could all die if nothing is done. So I decided to figure out what about Human minds causes them to ignore such an important thing. Similar to how a programmer uses a debugger (like Eclipse or Netbeans) to find bugs in software,
I am debugging the Human species, so I'm interested in how people choose their thoughts instead of the specific thoughts.
Bug found. Solution planned: pay somebody to not save somebody elses life when they didn't have to (and advertise it and get it on the news etc), therefore changing how people think about money.
I think its interesting that I maybe wouldn't have thought of this way to save many millions of lives if I had not listened to a certain Eminem (a guy who most people think is very offensive and destructive) song, with the words "that guy who could have saved that other guy from drowning, but didn't". Theres interesting ideas in many unexpected places.
A more important, and harder to fix, bug in how the Human species thinks is:
If I flip 2 coins and at least 1 landed heads, what's the chance both landed heads? Most people say 1/2 or 1/4 chance, but its 1/3 because there are 4 ways for 2 coins to land, "at least 1 landed heads" excludes "tails tails" leaving 3 possibilities, and I asked what is the chance of 1 of the 3 remaining possibilities, so its 1/3. This bug causes misunderstandings of the combination of any 2 events in the same way a neural network (gets the wrong answer) is different from a bayesian network (gets the right answer). This is a variation of the
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem I have a plan to fix it through complex math in my Audivolv software bending the way people think toward bayesian, but that is a long-term solution while the "Human life has very little value in dollars" problem is much easier to solve, as explained above.
Poll
