I ask this in seriousness -- why do we judge the possibility of the future as more valuable than the certainty of the past?
That is, why do people tend to be more sad when a kid has cancer than an old person? A child hasn't had decades to interact with and influence other people's lives. In terms of the sadness inflicted if someone were to die, an older person will have affected hundreds of lives, built things, had families, etc.
A child hasn't really impacted anyone except their parents.
I feel there's an underlying attitude that older people have had their time, and it's only right that a young person gets their chance.
But I'm not at all sure if that's true, and I wonder how much of this conversation is based on an assumption that we haven't explored verywell.
Tou need to luck at marginal cost: An old person is going to die, 100% chance, and that will cause sadness, etc. The question is what is the marginal value in each extra year of life, not is the death itself undesirable.
But you touch on a deeper question also: "saving lives" is a very modern idea. Traditionally, death was quote common all all corners of society, and the solution was to make more new people.
That is, why do people tend to be more sad when a kid has cancer than an old person? A child hasn't had decades to interact with and influence other people's lives. In terms of the sadness inflicted if someone were to die, an older person will have affected hundreds of lives, built things, had families, etc.
A child hasn't really impacted anyone except their parents.
I feel there's an underlying attitude that older people have had their time, and it's only right that a young person gets their chance.
But I'm not at all sure if that's true, and I wonder how much of this conversation is based on an assumption that we haven't explored verywell.