How much money would it take to gamble the life of a loved one?

[Go2Peace]

I would bet most of us would be repulsed by this scenario:

In an offer to take a gun with 20 chambers, one with a bullet: How much money would it take for you to take that gun, not knowing which chamber holds the bullet, hold it up to your loved one's temple, and pull the trigger?

Would you do it? What would your "price point" be?

Most of us would not risk that for anything (and if you would you need help).

But do we actually gamble with out future? And for a pittance?

Think about the deep well drilling as an example.

You can bet that there is a greater than 5% likelihood of one of these deep wells having a major spill if we drill them for 20 years, and a fairly high likelihood of multiple, possibly catastrophic, incidents. Why is that acceptable? To risk losing such an important and vital ecosystem for what is likely a few months of oil? But yet it seems so reasonable to simply think of it in terms of adding a few new "safeguards" and going on with business as usual.

Have we been convinced that we must gamble with our natural heritage? As we become more technologically capable, might we start to take calculated chances with our entire existence and our world? And what will the common man get from that gamble? Will the people who argue the statistics get rich while the average person is convinced that they must go along or perish in poverty? How did we get to that point?

And if we are to that point, doesn't that make us a little bit like the corporate execs we complain about? Do we have our own price point at which we are willing to gamble other people's lives and risk whole regions of the ocean?

And are those values breaking down little by little as we engage more and more in statistical evaluations of things that previously were taboo (for most) to engage in risk calculation, like people working on a rig. It takes less and less to get us to compromise what should be uncompromisable. Maybe we need to recognize that.

Should we take a stand on Deep well drilling? Should it really matter what kind of new "safeguard" measures might be implemented? Shouldn't there be some things that we won't take "a chance" on until we have a 100% Until they can guarantee 100% that this will not happen again, maybe we should not drill those holes? Period.

I cannot think of any reasonable justification to risk that much of a loss of what is truly important. Can anyone else? And if so, what personal gain would be worth that risk to you?

[RandomThoughts]

1. Good question, and it is a big question.

But it misses a point, in the metaphor it would be about getting paid to possibly hurt someone.


Reverse it, how much would you pay to have a flower and chocolate method of being kind, even if you knew it might only send a kind thought to someone every once in awhile.

And you have to try really hard to make sure people that have allergies to flowers or chocolates are helped by trying really hard to remove that allergy, so they can have flowers and chocolates also.

[midnight]

2. The risk seems like a no brainer when we think about how many other choices

for alternative energy resource we have had to explore and roll out, but have been blocked for years...

[Go2Peace]

10. And even then, if we lose a quarter of the ocean (at some point)

on retrospect I doubt people will have thought the risk was worth it for a few months of energy. I just think it would be better to get thinking about some of these tradeoffs *before* we have consequences.

I am not arguing for a particular policy, just trying to talk about establishing a framework we can use when considering these things.

I have no doubt that in 20-50 years we will have new technologies that a single accident could wipe out half the earth that promise great benefits in exchange for risking them.

Imagine if it might be possible to teleport, but creating a rift in space had the capability of destroying the planet. Would we go ahead and attempt it? Right now, in our current way of thought, I think we might.

If we are instead patient our ancestors will have the opportunity for even better possabilities without such incredible risks. We can build a future work

[babylonsister]

3. HCR was the same and your analysis is off.

Lose your house or take care of husband/wife/whomever. How many people went into bankruptcy?

As for the drilling, it is not a personal choice, nor is it something we asked for. You are making it personal.

[Go2Peace]

5. You can change and fix HCR. Once you loose ocean capacity it can't be restored in a lifetime

[babylonsister]

6. Agreed, and your OP is ridiculous because of that. There's no correlation. nt

[Go2Peace]

7. People can't stop arguing. Why bother posting in this OP?

I know that you are in a place where everything is about the presidency and I understand what likely moved you to take this negatively. But I hadn't even been thinking about Obama's stances on this. Just rather around the whole idea of taking such chances with such a huge ecosystem.

It wasn't a partisan post.

FYI: I think his recent stand to completely stop things, if only temporary, was a brave and respectable act.

[babylonsister]

9. Your subject line did what was intended. nt

[Go2Peace]

11. I think they are relevant parallels

When we risk an ecosystem the size we are I believe we are making the same types of choices. I used a strong example because I think we have become so used to the idea of putting "calculated risk" numbers on everything that I it needed a strong, but *accurate* analogy to get the point across.

The tragedy of losing a loved one is very real and tangable. The tragedy if we eventually lose a quarter of ocean habitat has just as serious consequences, it just the tragedy will unfold in ways we will not see as directly. But risking either of those is somewhat insane.

It should make people uncomfortable, that means we can still think through what can be lost. But my argument is we should have a similar thought process to this type of event. While it may get capped before it plunges the regions ecology to the tipping point, it demonstrates how easily we could go over the line. And if we think about it with wisdom it should give us pause. We should be a little shocked that we have come to the point we take such great risks with our children's future.

[Go2Peace]

12. I understand your point now, but disagree the analysis is not appropriate

We did not make the decisions. But in a Democracy we all have some level of responsability. If enough people had this level of conciousness about the issue, this would never have happened.

But I know that seems "far off" and idealistic. But how do we get there if we don't explore the ethical considerations of making these kinds of statistical judgements?

[bemildred]

4. Are you really going to pay me to gamble?

And I get to choose how much?

[Go2Peace]

8. LOL

[Jack_DeLeon]

13. The problem is that people dont mind gambling with the lives of others...

yeah most of us wouldnt pull the trigger on a loved one, however if you asked us to make that same bet on some other random person many more of us would. That essentially is the situation we have.

[Go2Peace]

17. Then we flunk the ethical test. And we eventually will destroy the planet

And I am not sure it is "all people". I think our society has come to a place where we place a lower value on life than many of our counterparts. Our willingness to fight unnecessary wars is a good example of that. Many other countries are not as casual in considering war as we are.

[dkf]

14. Why would you ask it of any other country then?

Your only option is to give up transportation and grow your own food. Practically everything we have relies on oil. Oh and you can't use plastic either

[Go2Peace]

16. There is enough oil in places where we can extrct it without risking

wholesale destruction. Not to continue to live like we do now forever, but we don't have to live like hermits either. Techically we could completely give it up. The technology is already here to have an incredible quality life but without risking everything to do it.

We live in a time where we can do a lot of things. But I see people did not understand the ethical dillemma and difference between drilling in a place where we can stop the flow with confidence, and drilling someplace where we don't have the capability to assure that we can keep the oil from serious destruction.

I am not suggesting an "all or nothing". I am simply suggesting to we use wisdom in our choices. I am not sure why that is such a difficult idea for people to grasp.

[Go2Peace]

15. Well, If this site is representative of liberal thought we don't have a chance

Because these are the kinds of ethical dillemma's we are in the middle of. How can we keep our planet and the future for our children if we aren't even willing to work through our decisions in our minds.

If it is ok to gamble statistically and take chances with the world around us in ways that we risk destroying it, sooner or later *we will* lose some of those "bets".