undefined

points

[-]

I just want to derail this thread to note that it was the Chevy Cobalt, the predecessor to the Cruze, which was part of the GM ignition switch thing which killed something like 100-250 people depending on whose numbers you believe in the I believe on-going lawsuits.

AFAIK there were no similar ignition switch failures or associated deaths with the Cruze (or other >2011 model year vehicles), although I think it might have been part of the recall.

by pbhjpbhj9 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

Shouldn't any design that is killing people, no matter how petty you think it is, be reason for homicide investigation against the companies executives?

I guess if you viewed customers as actual people the 'the dow is 50k - why do you want us to stop war crimes?' might also get a response requiring the treatment of humans with dignity.

If your executives can't kill people to make a couple of million what's the point of even being a wage-slave./s

by joxdosba37 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

All cars inherently kill people, we should focus on the cars that kill many people in predictable ways rather than the cars that kill few people in surprising ways.

by pfdietz6 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

No, because some killing is necessary for the economy to function. Reduction to zero means elimination of the product.

The way this statistical background of economic death is handled is by assigning a finite value to a human life. In the US it's about $12M. If you think this is inhumane, consider that this is the cutoff for government actions for reducing deaths (from traffic accidents, disease, etc.) Actions where the cost per life saved are higher than this figure mean we're leaving on the table actions that could have saved more lives for the resources spent.