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

Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

hedgehogreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 54 posts

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#31

Post by incrudible »

wyattpeak wrote: post #18
EvilEy3 wrote: post #17

Oh boy, yet another "actshually" filled with emotions that supposed to give "another view". You precisely know what Emanuel and Lee mean when they quanyify that someone with 25 years is a greater loss than someone with 60 years. This emotional story about grandmother does nothing to change their statement.

That's not the point that the article takes issue with. Not the difference in time, which the author acknowledges is important, but the classification of those later years as being inherently less valuable than the younger ones.

The problem is that insurances pool everyones money for treatment. No death can be prevented, only deferred.

Is it justified to extend the life of a terminal cancer patient for another miserable few months with chemotherapy, at full cost to everyone else in the pool?

I dare say not, and QUALY is the measure we use to calculate this, imperfect as it may be. It also is worth noting that QUALY is not conditioned on worker productivity, as suggested in the article.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#32

Post by Filligree »

ggm wrote: post #21

People commenting on this story should state their age. It would be interesting to help understand aspects of the answer. Some parts of this essay worked for me but I believe in QALYS as a basic measure to keep in mind, like millimorts. Another version of this thesis is "it takes a village to rear a child" I'm 59 btw

Completely off topic, but... it does take a village to raise a child.

I understand that instinctively, and I suppose I've read enough factual articles about it to believe it, but I'm missing a real explanation. Something I could point people at in lieu of trying to explain why that is, myself, which covers everything from "A higher diversity of 'parents' is helpful" to "it's not good to segregate children by age, actually".

I don't suppose you'd have something?

Or perhaps more likely, fiction which demonstrates the same thing would be valuable. Fictional evidence may not be evidence, but it's good at convincing people all the same. My personal favorite in the genre is Non Non Biyori; if you want to take a look, it's an excellent and relaxing story for these times.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#33

Post by lm28469 »

jlos wrote: post #11

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…

> > These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life.

Made me think about a few Frankl's quote

> For the meaning of life differs from man to man, from day to day and from hour to hour. What matters, therefore, is not the meaning of life in general but rather the specific meaning of a person's life at a given moment. To put the question in general terms would be comparable to the question posed to a chess champion, “Tell me, Master, what is the best move in the world?” There simply is no such thing as the best or even a good move apart from a particular situation in a game and the particular personality of one's opponent. The same holds for human existence. One should not search for an abstract meaning of life. Everyone has his own specific vocation or mission in life to carry out a concrete assignment which demands fulfillment. Therein he cannot be replaced, nor can his life be repeated. Thus, everyone's task is as unique as is his specific opportunity to implement it.

The funny thing is that people shitting on other's "meaningless hobbies" are very often in the second category he talks about:

> Moreover, there are various masks and guises under which the existential vacuum appears. Sometimes the frustrated will to meaning is vicariously compensated for by a will to power, including the most primitive form of the will to power, the will to money.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#34

Post by malwarebytess »

jlos wrote: post #11

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…

It would be sad if it wasn't infuriating. If they had only influence over their own lives then this would only a sad story. Idiots like John Lee decide the cancerous policy that configures our society. They as well be demons because their entire lives seem to be dedicated to torturing human beings by contorting their lives into an unnatural and subordinate lives as if it's the only thing that gives them pleasure.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#35

Post by ntsplnkv2 »

incrudible wrote: post #31
wyattpeak wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the point that the article takes issue with. Not the difference in time, which the author acknowledges is important, but the classification of those later years as being inherently less valuable than the younger ones.

The problem is that insurances pool everyones money for treatment. No death can be prevented, only deferred. Is it justified to extend the life of a terminal cancer patient for another miserable few months with chemotherapy, at full cost to everyone else in the pool? I dare say not, and QUALY is the measure we use to calculate this, imperfect as it may be. It also is worth noting that QUALY is not conditioned on work…

Everyone wants their grandma to get the most treatment possible, just no one else's. When it's "society" - people will say we're spending too much money. When the shoe is on their foot, people won't like it and say they "deserve the best care."

> for another miserable few months with chemotherapy,

My grandfather hated chemo. But he did it for those few more months - and he got to see my cousin get married. How do you account for this? You can't.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#36

Post by Damorian »

jlos wrote: post #11

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…

Imo, society needs more of this, and these ideas are not in any way new to philosophy. We live in an age of widespread hedonism and much of the way people live is unhealthy on an individual and societal basis. I fully reject the "be yourself, do what makes you happy" mindset of today because the ideal day for a young person now is sleeping in, eating sugar for breakfast, smoking weed, playing video games and watching porn all day. Most people don't take it to that extreme, but too many people, in my opinion, go in that direction instead of the direction of moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race and improves their life outside of momentary feelings of pleasure.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#37

Post by sandworm101 »

Damorian wrote: post #36
jlos wrote: post #11

> These people who live a vigorous life to 70, 80, 90 years of age—when I look at what those people “do,” almost all of it is what I classify as play. It’s not meaningful work. They’re riding motorcycles; they’re hiking. Which can all have value—don’t get me wrong. But if it’s the main thing in your life? Ummm, that’s not probably a meaningful life. I'm never really to sure which to find more shocking about these kin…

Imo, society needs more of this, and these ideas are not in any way new to philosophy. We live in an age of widespread hedonism and much of the way people live is unhealthy on an individual and societal basis. I fully reject the "be yourself, do what makes you happy" mindset of today because the ideal day for a young person now is sleeping in, eating sugar for breakfast, smoking weed, playing video games and watching…

>> moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race

Do not assume that everyone has the freedom to make such decisions. Moral decisions are ones that you can make regardless of life circumstance. Many people simply cannot afford the traditional lifestyle of getting married and having kids. I don't mean incels, I mean that all over the world there are young people who want to marry and have kids but are locked into economic situations that preclude the ability to take that "moral" path.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#38

Post by ndiscussion »

sandworm101 wrote: post #37
Damorian wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imo, society needs more of this, and these ideas are not in any way new to philosophy. We live in an age of widespread hedonism and much of the way people live is unhealthy on an individual and societal basis. I fully reject the "be yourself, do what makes you happy" mindset of today because the ideal day for a young person now is sleeping in, eating sugar for breakfast, smoking weed, playing video games and watching…

>> moral productive work and rearing children that actually advances the human race Do not assume that everyone has the freedom to make such decisions. Moral decisions are ones that you can make regardless of life circumstance. Many people simply cannot afford the traditional lifestyle of getting married and having kids. I don't mean incels, I mean that all over the world there are young people who want to marry and…

This is partially caused by the thinking in the article.

The modern selfish senior would rather live 5 more years in a nursing home with a bad quality of life than give their inheritance to their children. The inheritance is instead given to the state and megacorps.

Many of our parents inherited a home.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#39

Post by ndiscussion »

ouid wrote: post #22
jlos wrote: post #13

I think the main reason for the investment differential between the young and the old is that spending on the elderly is typically urgent. Problems for the elderly are mostly health related and if left unfunded will means someone, somewhere will be blamed. Problems for the young will show up later in some second order effect or missed opportunity. That's really hard to hold someone accountable for (especially public…

You should always vote against improving the lives of those younger than you at the cost of your own well-being, since you will never be younger than you are now.

Pretty sure this was a satirical post you guys, of course the youth are more important than the old. They're the only ones who can reproduce and ensure we have a strong civilization for thousands of years to come.

Re: Love and Death: “Quality of life” calculations leave out much that matters

#40

Post by ndiscussion »

ozborn wrote: post #6
abellerose wrote: post #4

> But are these life-endings [of a young person and an old person] equivalent? Perhaps, on a philosophical level, they are. On a practical level, however, the death of an 85-year-old person from a preventable cause has cost them a few years at the end of life, while a 25-year-old has, on the same calculation, lost over 60 years of life, including their most active and event-filled years. Every time I think about the…

My impression of the US in the pandemic era is that the value of the old is not held in high regard. Even prior, culture was focused on the young. However the value of money (which on average the old may have more of?) and catering to those who have it is definitely real and may be what you are suggesting.

I believe there's a reason the old people are more rich, and it's caused by these very policies.

When boomers were 30, they were many times richer than millennials.

Post reply on HN