Received: from mail1.panix.com (mail1.panix.com [166.84.0.212]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with ESMTP id IAA16298 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 08:27:32 -0700 (MST) Received: from [166.84.250.86] (dhenwood.dialup.access.net [166.84.250.86]) by mail1.panix.com (8.8.8/8.8.8/PanixM1.3) with ESMTP id KAA25176 for ; Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:27:29 -0500 (EST) X-Sender: dhenwood@popserver.panix.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <01be0f09$c2500920$516039cc@eglaze.vsta.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Date: Sat, 14 Nov 1998 10:27:34 -0500 To: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK From: Doug Henwood Subject: Re: Fw: overpopulation & Malthus Ed Glaze III wrote: >Below John says one such reprehensible statement is >"his contention that infants are of comparatively little value >to society (in the context of whether relief should be provided >to prevent them from dying of starvation)." That makes a lot >of sense to me because the younger a person, the less that >society has invested in them and the greater will be society's >future liability in support costs. Remember that this is in the >context of having to reduce population. Hopefully, the world >of today will realize the threat we face and we can avoid >having to make such reprehensible, but necessary decisions. That's one of the more chilling paragraphs I've read today, though it's only 10:30 in the morning. Let's value lives by how much "society" has invested in them! That would make Bill Gates's kid worth more than, what, all the infants in sub-Saharan Africa, right? A technical question - in your human valuation model, do you merely include the human capital "society" has invested in that person, or do you include a factor for the discounted value of the future wage stream? If the latter, what interest rate do you use? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: web: