Monday, February 28, 2011

Red Cup, you know I fly solo

So, that’s the lyrics from one of my favorite songs right now, called “Red Cup(I Fly Solo)” by CashCash, and it features Lacey Schwimmer and Spose. It’s really catchy, and I would recommend it to anyone. So, I’m currently in an argument with one of my friends about whether or not techno is a good genre (which, as all of you know, I dislike techno), but I told my friend that if he could find me a good techno song, I might change my mind. Since we’ve been at this for a few days now, I decided that I would leave it up to you guys, and see if any of you have a good idea for a techno song, since I’m trying to broaden my musical reach in a few different ways.

If you want to give me any of these songs that I’m convinced don’t actually exist (and trust me, I’ve looked. That was all that  my ex-boyfriend listens to, so he would give me a lot of links) then you can leave them in a comment for me to get around to-but I make no promises as to when, because we all know that I’m terrible with keeping track of when I post.

What I want to talk to you all about today is something that my honors economics class has spent a while talking about-can you put a monetary value on human life? I think that there’s no definite way to define it, but according to an article from the 16th of February (2011, so it’s recent), the Obama administration has deemed the price of a human life at 7.9 million dollars, a 2.6 million dollar raise from 2005, when it was 5.3 million dollars. This is an important topic to discuss, because it was segued into from a conversation about morals and ethics. Are morals and ethics different from economics? Is every choice that we make purely economic or moral, or do our morals come into play when we make an economic choice?

If we instituted the 343 million dollar plan to make mattresses more fire retardant, which (per year) would save 270 lives, should we? A vast majority of these mattress fires are started by smokers who smoke in bed. This program saves not only the smoker, but also the man in the apartment next door. Do we institute the 40 million dollar plan to put seat belts on every bus across the country, when only one child is killed a year? How can we not put a monetary value on life, when it’s so important for education against it? One of the girls in my class said that instead of putting the money to make mattresses more fire resistant, we should put that money into smoking education instead, so that everyone knows the dangers. Not all mattress fires are caused by smokers-in fact 20% of mattress fires are caused by a spark that gets shot out of the plug in the wall (which, in many houses in the US, emits about 270 volts-a deadly amount if some of that isn’t run through a conductor.)

Do we forsake the mattress program, even though we could cause the death of 54 people? If the monetary value of a human life is 7.9 million, that’s about 6 million dollars a person…

Do we implement the bus program, even though it takes about 6 years for it to live up to it’s full worth?

These questions are not just economics or monetary-it’s morals. Morals, psychologically speaking, are a system of what is right and wrong in a society, that varies drastically from culture to culture. For example, in the United States, we eat cows and other bi-products that come from that cow, yet people who are Hindu (or many people in India-not trying to be racist, just stating a fact) would find it sacrilegious, because they worship the cow. That’s just one example. We CAN put a monetary value on life, but only when it serves our benefits.

When an obese 70 year old man has a heart attack, tax payer’s money pays for any surgery, because he’s on Medicare. Hospitals have no right to turn away anyone, and that’s what we as a nation feel. Besides, he’s been putting money into the health care system-he only retired a few months ago. Imagine a 19 year old gets into a car accident, and is rushed to the emergency room. He’s contributed nothing to health care, and he’s living by himself-both of his parents are dead. Is he only given the minimum amount of care, because that’s what he’s expected to be given; that’s what we as a nation expect him to get? Imagine our 19 year old is paying for college (by himself, and he’s studying to be a business major) and the accident was caused by a drunk driver who was instantly killed. Do we expect him to pay for any medical costs as well as college? His career would allow him to pay for these medical bills, but if he has to juggle that along with college, how can we expect him to do what he has to in order to get by?

These economic and moral dilemmas are what make so many things impossible to accomplish across the board. So many corporations expect us to go along with what they say, and if the monetary value is black and white, it gives them a way to look at the costs and benefits of having faulty machinery and the way that they should be implementing their money. (Props to Toyota for their recall, even though it might have cost them more.)

I hope I’ve given you something to think about, and (hopefully) I’ll post more brain food for you guys later.

MUSIC TIME:

  1. Lost (Remix ft. Jay-Z)-Coldplay
  2. Electric Hearts-CashCash
  3. Down Low (ft. Mos)-Kayne West
  4. Guilty Filthy Soul(Ft. Wale)-AWOLNATION
  5. Hey Alli-Runner Runner
  6. Stand Up-Meelee

I hope you guys take the time to read the whole rant (instead of cutting to the bottom for the music…)