DISQUS

Yes, but is it the same when Bob has no skill and neither does Frank? Their only tradeable commodity is that they are alive, and provide labor. What is more, the harder all the Bobs have worked (and therefor the richer Bob's country), the more Franks will arrive.

My point is that I can understand Bob's point, but I don't think that killing Frank is the answer.

See the latest National Geographic on grassland chimps using spears to kill bushbabies. Another previously uniquely human characteristic.

Two comments:
1. Sometimes the insurance is cheap and worthwhile. How do the companies do it? They know that many people will lose or misplace their policy, or even forget that they have one! Or sell their car, or simply be too lazy to claim. So, look at each policy offered and decide what type of person you are. Exactly as you did, Al.
2. Life insurance (both term and investment) are different, and you probably don't intend to include them in your analysis.

Just a brief comment on Greg's response:
If we take Greg's comment and then 'Find and Replace' Zuma with Mugabe, we have an essay which could easily have been written in the then Rhodesia. Similarly, if we 'Find and Replace' Zuma with Hitler we have an essay which could have been written by some Jewish intellectual in 1934 Germany. My point is that pure optimism doesn't change realities. What one needs to do is look at probabilities of some event occurring, not only at the possibility that an event may occur. What is the probability of a man whose legal advisor sits in jail for corruption and fraud, and who admits to having unprotected sex with a known HIV positive woman (with a shower to protect him!), providing stable leadership?

If you think that is crazy, what about the Saudi woman who was gang-raped, and then SHE was sentenced to 200 lashes with a whip! (Because she was walking in the street with a man who was not her husband. Her husband objects to the sentence, because he says she did no wrong.)

You assume (probably erroneously) that 'altering' is equivalent to 'bad'. If that is your definition of 'bad' then obviously you must be correct. If however, environmentally bad is defined in terms of nett CO2, or soil nutrition or some other method, then my original criticism still stands....it is not a given. Incidentally, all humans also chew up resources (space, nutrients, etc) so are all humans also bad?

How can it be considered a "given" that farming is bad for the environment? Perhaps certain farming practices, under specific conditions, may be detrimental to the environment, but most certainly not "farming".

There is an evolutionary psychology explanation for the preference for peripheral processing, which is related to your points. We are genetically programmed to choose the peripheral route, because those individuals who took the time to centrally process information got eaten.