Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Servant Corps]

Let me test this sytem I just jury-rigged. This system is based on a fundemental assumption: Some human life have more value and influence than others. (This could explain why there is much shock if an American dies and less shock when other people from other countries die.) This value can be determined by the wealth of the country within they reside, if a person lives in a country with a high GDP per capita, he has more value than a person living in a country with a low GDP per capita. GDP per capita isn't really reliable at all in determing how much money a person actually has, it is just representive of the nation's wealth. For example, Qatar has a high GDP per capita, but that wealth is concentared in the hands of the (relatively) few and it has an underclass. Still, this system is the best I can come up with, as I don't trust the other systems of nation's wealth, altough I am quite willing to do conversions to, say, HDI, if this system itself is promising.

Let us take the CIA World Factbook's GDP per capita figures of say, the US, and compare that to Somailia. According to the CIA World Factbook, the Somaila's (nominal) GDP per capita is $600, and the US' (nominal) GDP per capita is $47,000. One American Life is equal to that of 78 Somailians. From this you can conclude that 3000 Americans (the casualities of the events of 9/11)=235,000 Somailians.

According to the CIA, Afghanistan's GDP per capita is $800. One American life is equal to 58.75 Afghanis. So, 9/11 took away the equiviliant of 176,250 Afghanis.

Iraq's GDP per capita is $4,000, so 1 American Life=11.75 Iraqis. One 9/11 took away the equiviliant of 35,250 Iraqis.

The country with the highest GDP per capita, according to the CIA, is the monarchy Liechtenstein, with a GDP per capita of $118,000. Rich people live in this country to avoid banking regulations, pay low taxes, and look at the great winter scenery. If one Liechtenstein banker kicks the bucket, it is as if 2.5 Americans died. If one American die, it is as if 0.39 Liechtenstein bankers dies. 9/11 would have killed an equviliant of 1195 Liechtenstein bankers.

This system may be useful in providing exact value of human beings, allowing for one person to really gague how much of an impact a death is. If I said 58 Afghanis were killed by the Taliban, you would shurg. But if I said that the equiviliant of 1 American was killed by the Taliban, it would be such great horror and news to other Americans. Maybe this would be a way to "clarify the picture", if you will.

Maybe.

(EDIT: I know one main criticism. I should not rely on the CIA Factbook and instead rely on figures from the World Bank or the UN. That may be true, but there are times where the World Bank or the UN may not be able to come up with figures, like say, with Afghanistan and Iraq. The CIA Factbook's figures should be taken with a grain of salt, I admit.)

[Idiom]

Translating casualties into something more tangible for people is a great idea. Basing it on GDP, however, means it will only have meaning to economists. This raises the question: What is it that gives a human life value?

Needs to be translated into a siblings death or something. Such as "Remember when your brother was killed? 9/11 did that 211,500 times to Iraqi's." (First google result said average family size was 6 over there). Then of course, even that only has value to the people who can appreciate it.

One 9/11 took away the equiviliant of 35,250 Iraqis.
So, 9/11 took away the equiviliant of 176,250 Afghanis.

What's the confirmed death toll currently at for Iraqis and Afghanis from the war?

[woose1]

How about the average ability for a human being to give good will to others?

[Kagus]

I find this system to be somewhat flawed from a purely factual point of view, due to the wildly varying economic states and relations in different places.

However, there's something about reducing humans to a numbered worth and then comparing that worth to others that tickles some dark and nasty critter in my mind and makes me grin evilly at the concept.  Good show, man.

[Servant Corps]

What's the confirmed death toll currently at for Iraqis and Afghanis from the war?

It's hotly disputed, and usually filled with bias. I'm going to use what I see is the most reliable and 'conservative' estimate (if only because I would rather underestimate rather than overestimate).
Iraq War: Iraq Body Count (91,059 – 99,431 violent civilian deaths as a result of the conflict). [Yes, I know conservatives are going to ream at me, but there are much more outlandish numbers on Wikipedia. Trust me. In a speech around 2006, Bush said about 30,000 Iraqis died.]
Afghanistan War: 10,960-30,557, according to Wikipedia.

So, if 91,059 Iraqis die, that would be equviliant of 7750 Americans dying. If 99,431 Iraqis die, that would be the equiviliant of 8462 Americans dying.

Afghanistan casualiy numbers can be seen as the equviliant of losing 187-520 American lives.

[Jude]

The disparity in how Americans react to an American dying versus some brown person dying isn't a mathematical calculation, it's just because of in-group bias.

[Frogeyes]

Gotta be more to it than that. As noted above, tragedies in rich, white countries evoke attract much more attention than tragedies in countries such as Sudan.

[JoshuaFH]

Did they have a system like this in the medieval ages?

[Frelock]

Similar, but different in one major.  Nobility were worth about an infinite amount of peasantry.  Kill a hundred peasants, and your just a local bandit.  Kill a noble, and you'd be hunted down without mercy.  Also, note that though it was considered unacceptable for a peasant to kill a peasant, nobility killing a peasant was not looked down upon.  A peasant killing a noble would be the lowest form of traitor.

Yes, I'm over-exaggerating, but it's not too far off the mark.

[codezero]

Everyone who's posted in this topic save Jude is suffering a high amount of insularity. The fact is Somalian news is going to feature 1 Somalian death in a mine on the front page and then an American school massacre in the brief section, and vice versa. If some tourist dies from a country than that country is going to report it as quite serious, as it concerns all citizens from that country (it could be a relation or friend, for example). Don't be such fucking elitists. You're not hard 'cause you can say something anonymously that would get your head smacked in in real life.

[DJ]

Value is subjective. From your perspective an American life is worth more than mine, but from my perspective all of America can drop dead if it'd prevent my death.

[Akroma]

http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html

everybody should read this article, it will make you understand such double-standards much better



tl;dr version :
everyone you don't have contact with regularly is not a person, and there won't be any sadness about their fate until it is linked to a personal story. Only after learning private details about some, that becomes a person.

But for all sakes and purposes, the guy that takes out your trash is less of a person than your dog.

This is btw why stereotypes work so well. It is much easier to think of all blacks as "the black" as thinking about each of them as an individual.
9/11 was a sad day because it hit "us americans", though most americans didn't know anyone who was killed that day, nor do they know someone who knows someone


on that note, your system is bullshit, because when your dog has more value to you than the entirety of lichtenstein, including every dog and cat in it.

[Puck]

Let me test this sytem I just jury-rigged. This system is based on a fundemental assumption: Some human life have more value and influence than others. (This could explain why there is much shock if an American dies and less shock when other people from other countries die.)

I stopped reading right there.

This is just a matter of perception, and I suggest, just like akroma, reading up on "Dunbar's Number" or, if you want it presented in a more entertaining way "The Monkeysphere". Just google either of the terms, imho those give the best available answer (at this point of history) why there is a difference in perception of the suffering of others.

(and seriously, when the rest of the world hears on the news -again- how horrible it is that a double digit number of marines died on a mission, while 10 times the numbers of locals had to die, we usually wonder how skewed the american perception of reality is. the average dirt farmer isnt worth less to us...)

[Duke 2.0]

 And just to keep things not always skewed towards hatin' America:

 The average pirate will curse us over killing a few of their crew in self-defense, but will be indifferent to the families of the crews they kidnap.

 Really, lets just use the system Woose suggested. And have the 'worth' go up more if we give to difficult causes things, like people we hate and the lowest classes of the world.

[umiman]

This reminds me of an economic experiment I read about back in the day. Basically, several economists ran an experiment that went like this:

We give you a choice between a few houses, of varying pollution and niceness degrees. The houses were made so that the nicer the house, the worse the pollution. They made it clear to the participants the levels of everything. The participants were all families with newborn kids. All the houses had the same price. Participants had to choose which house to buy.

Basically, they used the data to see how much people valued the health of their children over the numerical value of comfort.