If a situation like the movie "Martian" arises, would NASA (or some other space agency) spend few billions to save that one person?
If a situation like the movie "Martian" arises, would NASA (or some other space agency) spend few billions to save that one person?. Do You mister or misses own that kind of uncertainty?, If do then plz check the good tips below this line:
The government is completely inconsistent when they consider the monetary value of a human life. For nuclear power, when it evaluates the monetary cost of an accident, it uses the figure of $3 million per life. Thus, if a safety system costs $2 million, and is likely over its lifetime to save 1 life, then it is required (since it costs less than the life saved).
Yet we could spend $10,000 in ambulence service, and save one life. The fact that many regions donât have better ambulence service can be interpreted as societyâs unwillingness to spend $10,000 for a life.
If the money is spent in the developing world, then it gets more out of balance. By paying for nurses to vaccinate, we could probably save lives for under $10 per life. (If someone has a better number published somewhere, Iâd be interested in knowing the reference.)
So, although people will say that the purpose of the money is to âsave a lifeâ, that reason is not consistent with the way we do it. We let people die when only a few dollars could save them.
Yet I suspect the move âThe Martianâ correctly depicts the way the government would act. A public life is valued at a much higher level than a random and anonymous life.
We at this situspanda.com hope that those solutions above can fix your concern. Thank You