Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

blog.minming.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 70 posts

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#21

Post by andyjohnson0 »

confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Gates isn't talking about the value of human lives in terms of money, cost, ROI, investment, consumption, production, or any of the other terms you've used. She's referring to their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. That you've constructed such a long comment based on such a misunderstanding is rather worrying.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#22

Post by confluence »

zerostar07 wrote: post #19
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Assuming that people will keep reproducing the traditional way, live short lives and free market capitalism will maintain its intellectual dominance in future generations.

This works without reproduction or short lives.

If you assume human's can live forever then a similar production/consumption cycle will occur.

Free market capitalism need not be the system. This would work equally as well under market socialism (Euro), or just plain socialism (far future).

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#23

Post by confluence »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #21
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Gates isn't talking about the value of human lives in terms of money, cost, ROI, investment, consumption, production, or any of the other terms you've used. She's referring to their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. That you've constructed such a long comment based on such a misunderstanding is rather worrying.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would get done if this wasn't enforced - Murder is just economically bad, as is fraud, rape, abuse, battery, censorship and many other things - morals need not come into it - not enforcing these protections is more expensive - for more treatment in thinking like this see "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins).

See the problem with the terms "intrinsic worth" and "dignity" is that they are almost meaningless and very fuzzy. What do you mean exactly?

> “All lives have equal value”

Melinda Gates repeatedly emphasized the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation’s deep belief that all lives have equal value and everyone should be given the same chance.

I've come to the exact same conclusion that she has with harder terms. We need to give people the same chance because if done so - we are all better off.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#24

Post by icebraining »

kaptain wrote: post #18
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

This fact, I think, is what makes it hard to say one life is more valuable than another

Just last night I said "those Brussels sprouts are worth less than me" by eating them. I don't find it hard at all.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#25

Post by tspiteri »

kaptain wrote: post #18
confluence wrote: post #13

All lives don't have equal current value, but the do have equal eventual value - I'll explain that in a moment (please note: I mean financial/economic value as I believe the term "moral/intrinsic" value to be so vague and undefined as to be completely useless as a thought model or reasoning tool - I understand what Melinda means). This is empirically correct - a poor person in Africa is worth less than a rich America…

Melinda Gates wasn't talking about economic value. I find it difficult to believe that most HN'rs take her statement to mean economic value since, as most people have been pointing out, all lives don't have equivalent financial worth. The rest of your point, I think, is a very interesting way to look at the value of human life, but it is a crude way of evaluating the worth of humanity purely in the context of financi…

... there is something sacred and indescribable of all life (not just human) simply because it's not something that we can create from artificial means...

In the future, people may find ways to create life from artificial means, and that does not make life any less sacred. So please don't try too hard to find a reason behind holding life sacred.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#28

Post by andyjohnson0 »

confluence wrote: post #23
andyjohnson0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates isn't talking about the value of human lives in terms of money, cost, ROI, investment, consumption, production, or any of the other terms you've used. She's referring to their intrinsic worth and dignity as human beings. That you've constructed such a long comment based on such a misunderstanding is rather worrying.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would…

You haven't come to the "exact same conclusion" that she has. You've come to a different conclusion that just appears to you to be the same because it has the potential for the same outcome.

(Edit: added "potential for the same outcome")

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#29

Post by pretoriusB »

wheels wrote: post #15
pretoriusB wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you want are driven, motivated and open-minded individuals that can created disruptive innovation; entrepreneurs. As if the problems of the third world are not already in large part created by greedy enterprises operating there?

No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists. There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there. Economic growth is pretty clearly the most effective means of lifting populations out of…

>No, mostly not. At least not without help from regional oligarchs or colonialists.

Those two types tend to be at best relationships with new "enterpreneurs" in the areas.

>There's very little utility to the west in most of Africa being poor. Like, most of sub-saharan Africa isn't especially resource rich, their food production isn't very efficient so we don't source much of that, nor do we outsource much labor there.

Well, I wouldn't be so sure.

See Shell and Nigeria, Congo and blood diamonds, C.A.R, etc. Things like this: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/inside-france...

And the West might not get much utility of some particular African states being poor, but it gets much utility of them not being richer and stronger: it gets to keep the nearby states at the status quo it wants. A stronger sub-saharan state might alter the power status in the region for states the west _does_ get utility from. It's for that very reason that the West would never allow some "pan-african" federation to operate freely.

Re: Melinda Gates at Stanford: "All lives have equal value"

#30

Post by confluence »

andyjohnson0 wrote: post #28
confluence wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully understand what she means (I'm not an idiot) - and I think the way people describe "morals" is very vague to the point of being useless, as correct human actions can be easily enforced using other means (for example we have laws not to kill each other - Why? Well you could say it's the moral thing to do - and of course people say that. But it's also such a waste - everyone would live in fear and nothing would…

You haven't come to the "exact same conclusion" that she has. You've come to a different conclusion that just appears to you to be the same because it has the potential for the same outcome. (Edit: added "potential for the same outcome")

How is it different? Both actions amount to the same thing don't they - protect and help the poor to make us all better off. The reasons may be different - but the outcome is the same, isn't it? If both theories produce equivalent actions, then the theories are equivalent, no?
Post reply on HN