BTW To get the full suckiness hidden in the bland phrase “net loss of wealth” most people need some aid to fix their intuitions. Converting “wealth” to happy productive years or dead child currency sometimes works.
(nods) That certain simplifies the task of comparing it to the loss of happy productive years and/or the increase in dead children that sometimes follows from the bland phrase “using forbidden statistical knowledge.”
Once we convert everything to Expected Number of Happy Productive Years (for example), it’s easier to ask whether we’d prefer system A, in which Sum(ENoHPY) = N1 and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2, or system B where Sum(ENoHPY) = (N1 - X) and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2- Y.
(nods) That certain simplifies the task of comparing it to the loss of happy productive years and/or the increase in dead children that sometimes follows from the bland phrase “using forbidden statistical knowledge.”
That is kind of the point of being a utilitarian. And remembering to consider opportunity cost let alone estimate it often is the hard part when it comes to policy.
BTW To get the full suckiness hidden in the bland phrase “net loss of wealth” most people need some aid to fix their intuitions. Converting “wealth” to happy productive years or dead child currency sometimes works.
(nods) That certain simplifies the task of comparing it to the loss of happy productive years and/or the increase in dead children that sometimes follows from the bland phrase “using forbidden statistical knowledge.”
Once we convert everything to Expected Number of Happy Productive Years (for example), it’s easier to ask whether we’d prefer system A, in which Sum(ENoHPY) = N1 and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2, or system B where Sum(ENoHPY) = (N1 - X) and Standard Deviation(ENoHPY) = N2- Y.
That is kind of the point of being a utilitarian. And remembering to consider opportunity cost let alone estimate it often is the hard part when it comes to policy.