What is the Value of a Person?

What is the value of a person?

Is it the amount that an insurance company is willing to pay in the context of a life insurance? Is it the amount that a regular company would compensate for that person's work? Is it the amount of economic value that the person can create through the work of their labour, be it menial or mental? Is it the perceived utility value of that person with respect to the things that they do, irrespective of their alleged economic value? Is it something that is technically priceless since there is no amount of money that can be paid to replace the person who was lost?

Or is it zero, since in the long run, none of us matter anyway?

At the risk of a cop out, I think all of the above are correct, and there really isn't a single context-free way of thinking about it. Each interpretation is correct in context, and there is no single context that is universal.

One might say that we should take a long-term view on things always, in which case none of us has any value since in the long run, we're all dead anyway.

One might shrink it a little and talk about the use value of a person with respect to the society they are in, in which case the amount of economic value that the person can generate will make sense.

Perhaps a little more focused method would be to consider the more traditional Marxist analysis of how economic value is really the surplus labour value, and to consider each person by their replacement labour value (i.e. the remuneration/compensation for their efforts in labour) instead.

Life insurance is a bit more voodoo and talks about a weighted look of a person's likelihood of living for another x years given that they have lived for y years, adjusted by the amount of profit that the underwriting company can make through making actuarial bets across a large enough population to pool their collective risk.

And finally, to those who enjoy a relationship with a person (doesn't matter whether it is familial, fraternal, or any of the different ways one can be involved with each other that does not reach the level of indifference), perhaps the value is simply unquantifiable.

``MT, the fuck you spouting?''

I was just taking the bus and thinking about the whole bull-shit about ``high-value males/females'' in the context of dating, and was wondering just what kind of ``high-value'' are these people thinking. There's a lot of posturing and signalling involved in these kinds of talk, and the more I have read what they were saying, the more superficial and destructive they sound. It is then of little wonder why societies in general are getting ever-increasingly volatile.

Perhaps the best way to look at this is to think about it from the negation, that is, what counts as a ``low-value person''. To many, a large part seems to be on the ability (or lack thereof) for a person to bring in a ``large enough'' monthly income. Apart from that is also the idea that someone who is not a social butterfly is also considered to be of ``low value''. And then there is also some contradictory aspect of how these ``low value'' people are thus so because they refuse to put the observer onto some kind of pedestal, to treat them like the ``kings and queens'' that they are.

I... don't think I follow the logic. It sounds more like these folks are looking for a cash machine slave than anything else, and in my eyes, a cash machine slave is probably the lowest value ``person'' around.

After all, one of the hallmarks of a slave is the lack of personhood, i.e. the distinct de-humanising of the person so that they have no other identity other than the apparent use value that they have. Some might use the politically less offensive version of ``objectification'', but I think ``slave'' has just the right amount of derogatorial feel that strikes the right nuance without whitewashing the truly offensive nature.

I think we're just overthinking everything. We aren't really in a world where people partner/pair up because of the need for primitive survival (like political alliances between tribes, reproducing enough for ``cheap'' labour to run the subsistence farm); people partner up because it is usually better to face the world as a pair rather than alone (``MT, what about as a trio or larger?'' You shut the fuck up on that one!). Assuming that the couple isn't unequally yoked, all these talk of ``high value'' and ``low value'' are truly meaningless, with their sole existence as a means for generating talk so that people whose worth is all about the amount of attention they can get [and monetise from] can derive [economic] value from them.

So, what is the value of a person?

At the risk of sounding exceptionally anti-climactic, it is whatever you want it to be, depending on the context in which you are performing the valuation. More importantly, whatever it is that you value a person in the particular context is only applicable to you and your context alone, and isn't something that can be nor should be propagated to others as though it were the only way to perform the said valuation.

------

In other news, SIN city is hit with a big-ass monsoon run for the past three or so days, with non-stop rain, and an overall cooling of the dry-bulb(?) to around 21+ °C, which is hilarious considering that our normal temperature is nearer 30 °C. I don't feel that due to how my room in the apartment is structured---polystyrene insulation on the external-facing walls, closed windows, closed door, and a single exhaust fan. It's still a toasty 26 °C in here.

AGDQ is live now-ish, and I've bookmarked the VOD list for watching during my upcoming week-long ``I-hit-forty-bitches'' leave the week following (not this upcoming one).

The machine I built for Ma finally decided to bite the dust, with the mobo failing to even POST. Considering that it was nearly 4 years ago (nearly 1369 days for those who are keeping count), I suppose it is about time. I'll probably re-use everything except for the motherboard (it's probably broken) and the CPU (Core i5-11500 is usable, but finding a mobo for this is likely hellish). So that means a trip down to Sim Lim Square is in the works, likely during my ``I-hit-forty-bitches'' leave.

I was into Sixty Four for quite a bit---having been introduced to it via Reddit(?) as one of those ``cookie-clicker''/factory type games. It's colourful, mostly fun, and not so easy to scale. Overall, it's alright.

I've also started on Fallout 4 some time back, and went full power fantasy instead of grinding out them levels (it's dreadfully slow, and I just want to shoot baddies). I've also started on Portal with RTX for some reason, and am reminded about how slowly Chell walks.

Persona 5 is not forgotten---I'll get back to it once I want to do the ``sit down with a controller'' mode. I also did not forget Pillars of Eternity, but it's an RPG that is currently in a town, so down time is ``all right'' I suppose.

What else is there to say?

I suppose that's truly it for now.

Till the next update.