(June 29, 2014 at 9:16 am)vorlon13 Wrote:(June 29, 2014 at 1:06 am)Jenny A Wrote: If it were cost free yes. But since it isn't maybe not. How many lives could be improved with the same money?
If the goal was to save the most lives with the least money (and weird to consider, that apparently is NOT the goal) the money spent on the net if directed to a sanitation project in India, or a vaccination campaign in Africa would save FAR more lives.
The same is true of seat belts on school buses, in case you were wondering about that too.
Having raised the money issue, is the net cost justified by the savings to the public in retrieving the bodies from the bay? Has anyone raised the concern it might be cheaper than having boats and 'Tommy James' Draggin' the Line ???
The point is merely that we don't have unlimited resources. Therefore spending a lot of money so that just one person might reconsider is not worth it. We tend to spend money where public emotion is currently fixed at the expense of everything else. This spending all the money in the world to save a single child attitude makes sense only if there is only one child in the world.
How we allocate money is a whole nother thread.
If there is a god, I want to believe that there is a god. If there is not a god, I want to believe that there is no god.
