The government regularly has to calculate a baseline for saving lives; e.g. if you have to spend 3 trillion dollars to save one life, you could instead do many much cheaper things to save millions of lives.
For the US, preventing highway deaths is valued at roughly $13 Million[1], which is probably what GP is thinking of; the government has confidence that for every $13MM it spends on highway safety, it can save 1 life, on average, so a new safety measure that costs less than this per life saved is a win, and a new safety measure that costs more than this per life saved is a loss.
I'm sure in other contexts there are other numbers; there is no reason to think that safety interventions in e.g. mines or factories or hospitals should cost the same. Similarly if you've talked to a member of the Effective Altruism community for more than about 5 minutes you're likely to hear how you can save a life in Africa with mosquito nets for less than $10k.
Clearly money can buy lives, but GP needs to justify why they are using the USDOT numbers rather than some other number.
For the US, preventing highway deaths is valued at roughly $13 Million[1], which is probably what GP is thinking of; the government has confidence that for every $13MM it spends on highway safety, it can save 1 life, on average, so a new safety measure that costs less than this per life saved is a win, and a new safety measure that costs more than this per life saved is a loss.
I'm sure in other contexts there are other numbers; there is no reason to think that safety interventions in e.g. mines or factories or hospitals should cost the same. Similarly if you've talked to a member of the Effective Altruism community for more than about 5 minutes you're likely to hear how you can save a life in Africa with mosquito nets for less than $10k.
Clearly money can buy lives, but GP needs to justify why they are using the USDOT numbers rather than some other number.
1: https://www.transportation.gov/office-policy/transportation-...*