A rather large problem with threads like this stems from the word "value".
The original poster has formed a concept in their mind, and wishes to communicate this concept (which is the question). Sine this cannot be done directly, the poster must use words to approximate the meaning of their concept, and the people who read the post must then try to derive to concept from the words.
There are some words, however, which are more precise than others. The range of meanings which can be applied to different words varies, not only from person to person, but within a single person's mind. Indeed, in my experience, the majority of arguments and disagreements come down to different definitions of words that people have.
The words that were used to ask the question were "What value is life?". On the whole, these are bad words to be using - they are very ambiguous, and thus potential correct answers will vary greatly. Nobody can really answer this question, as their individual definitions of the words involved will vary.
We can attempt to narrow down the range of meanings, and therefore the range of answers, by using more precise words. Indeed, if the original poster said "How much, in real monetary terms, could the average human produce over the course of their remaining life, minus the costs, in real monetary terms, or sustaining them for that period?", then answers could be given more satisfactorily. However, since all we have to go on is "what value is life", then the more we try to refine the question to remove ambiguity, the less chance we have of containing the original poster's meaning in the refined question.
In short, the question is to vague and imprecise to be able to asnwer with any confidence. This can be recitfied by the original poster refining the quesiton into more precise terminology.
Author
Topic: What Value is Life? (Read 3516 times)