The next one hundred years

--- rmenich@... wrote:
> 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?

Spend as much time and money testing at as is needed. Try and get rid of as
many as you can but if you discover any after it's been released (probably
will) then recall the product to fix it. It usually doesn't cost that much to
fix most of the minor defects. Particulary if you try to do it as cheaply as
possible.

If a company knows about a safety related defect in its product it should fix
it. Otherwise it's just leaving itself open to lawsuits (which will probably
cost it a lot more then fixing the defect would).

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

People will expect to come back from their trip into space. Actually I'd be
willing to say that if you're going into space in a well designed launcher the
most dangerous part of the trip will be driving to the local spaceport.
Altough just because it's very safe doesn't mean we can't make it safer. Sure
we have to make sure it can still be paid for and will actually get something
into orbit but that doesn't mean it has to be a death trap.

> 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.

How do we decide what that dollar value is?

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

You can get quite big safety increases through very little effort if you do it right.