The next one hundred years

xenophile2002 wrote,

"So. My research guys determine that known defects in my product will
probably kill one person every year and a half, but that I would lose
$12 million dollars to fix it right away. Since lawsuits can't be
very much, and since my product shouldn't last more than 9 years
anyway, it's cheaper for me to leave the defect in place, pay out the
little decisions, and try to do a better job with the next model.
Economically valid, but morally reprehensible.
"

How much should an auto company spend to eliminate defects? Should it
spend so much that it goes bankrupt? (I hope that you will answer no to
that). Should it spend so much that, even though it makes a profit, its
profit is so low that its stock is a very poor investment? How should a
company balance investment in safety-related technology versus, say,
investment in better fuel economy? A technology company has many
potential pots in which to put money, and any public company has a
fiduciary responsibility to care for the welfare of its owners. Is
unquestioning investment in safety in the best interests of the
shareholders?

Any of these questions regarding auto companies will be replicated in the
future with respect to rockets and space stations and colonies.

You wrote,

"Xenophile (*balance* folks, *balance*)"

and I heartily agree with you. There will be no balance with respect to
safety issues until we realize as a society that WE MUST PUT A $ VALUE ON
A STATISTICAL HUMAN LIFE. Everyone says this is "morally reprehensible",
but otherwise how can or should a company rationally approach safety
issues? We must do cost/benefit and tradeoff analyses with respect to
safety.

It is not morally reprehensible to think rationally. And balance means
doing cost/benefit analyses with respect to safety.

Ron
******

"xenophile2002"
02/13/02 10:57 PM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
cc:
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: The next one hundred years

--- In spacesettlers, Ravenart wrote:

> Ron,
>
> This is but one of the many reason why I think that when we move
> beyond LEO and create a long-term settlements, we will have to move
> fast to create a new kind of legal system. I think archno-
> captialism in which each suits are limited to actual damages (NOT
> emotional and other nonsense) and are decided by a third party who
> is paid 50-50% by both parties involded. A new system of very

So. My research guys determine that known defects in my product will
probably kill one person every year and a half, but that I would lose
$12 million dollars to fix it right away. Since lawsuits can't be
very much, and since my product shouldn't last more than 9 years
anyway, it's cheaper for me to leave the defect in place, pay out the
little decisions, and try to do a better job with the next model.
Economically valid, but morally reprehensible.

> simple laws in simple English can help provide the businesses a
> place of security from the silly and destructive lawsuits from
> which they can have the freedom to improve technology. This rapid

Provide the *businesses*, yes. But what about the customers?

> process is a MUST if the colonies are to be rapidlly improved in
> safety and comfort,

I'm missing something here. You improve safety by *removing* the
penalties for putting out unsafe junk?!

> so a strong protection against liability will be one of the first
> to be spelled out under the articles dealing with private property
> and personal injury.

Against *idiot* liability, yes (like the nonsense with breast
implants). We need to do something to make the law make sense. But
we need to avoid like the plague (which it is) going too far the
other way, if we want to avoid (which we do) the bad old days of the
19th Century.

> Carl

Xenophile (*balance* folks, *balance*)