Trade-Offs

  • Richard C. Schwing
Part of the General Motors Research Laboratories book series (RLSS)

Abstract

Finite resources meeting competing desires require efficient expenditures in all areas of life, even those that are life extending. Efficiency thus becomes synonymous with trade-offs. A survey of longevity for longevity trades introduces the concept of choosing among alternative life extending programs.

The 55 mph speed limit introduces more dimensions into the problem and the trade-offs become more difficult. Finally, the risks inherent in different energy futures present a very complex trade-off problem. The situation is complicated by individual and group perspectives and illustrates why a political consensus is difficult to achieve. The paper graphically illustrates why our institutions are virtually paralyzed by attempting to gain a mutually acceptable policy.

Keywords

Speed Limit Electric Power Research Institute Smoke Alarm Finite Resource Herring Gull 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    V. R. Fuchs, Who Shall Live?, Basic Books, New York, 1974.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    G. Calabresi and P. Bobbin, Tragic Choices, Norton, New York, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    D. Callahan, The Tyranny of Survival: And Other Pathologies of Civilized Life, McMillan, New York, 1973.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    R. N. Grosse, “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Health Service,” Annals of the American Academy, 399: 89–99, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. C. Schwing, “Longevity Benefits and Costs of Reducing Various Risks,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 13: 333–345, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    W. T. Coleman, Jr., “The National Highway Safety Needs Report” by the Secretary of Transportation to the United States Congress, U.S. Department of Transportation, April 1976.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. Wilson, “Risks Caused by Low Levels of Pollution,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine, 51: 37–51, 1978.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    B. L. Cohen, “Society’s Valuation of Life Saving in Radiation Protection and Other Contexts.” (Health Physics, in press.)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    G. Calabresi, “Reflections on Medical Experimentation in Humans,” Daedalus 98, 2, 387–405, 1969.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    “Neglect of Maintenance Worldwide Study Finds,” Automotive News, p. 20, November 20, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    A. C. Malliaris and R. L. Strombotne, “Demand for Energy by the Transportation Sector and Opportunities for Energy Conservation” published in Energy: Demand, Conservation and Institutional Problems, M. S. Macrakis, ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1974.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Automobile Fuel Economy, Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association, September 21, 1973.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. C. Goodwin andM. L. Haviland, “Fuel Economy Improvements in EPA and Road Tests with Engine Oil and Rear Axle Lubricant Viscosity Reduction.” Presented to Society of Automotive Engineers Passenger Car Meeting, Troy, Michigan, June 1978.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    J.D. Williams, “Comments on Automobile Traffic,” Rand Corporation Report, P-1556, 1958.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. A. Lave, “The Costs of Going 55,” Newsweek, p. 37, October 23, 1978.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. H. Castle, “The 55 MPH Speed Limit: A Cost/Benefit Analysis,” Traffic Engineering, 46:11–14, January 1976.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    L. Goldmuntz, “The Public Interest in A uto Fuel Efficiency,” Economics and Science Planning, Inc., May 11, 1978.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. O’Day, D. J. Minghan, andD. H. Golomb, “The Effects of the Energy Crisis and the 55 MPH Speed Limit in Michigan,” University of Michigan Highway Safety Research Institute Report No. UM-HSRI-SA-75-9, 1975.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1973.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Statistics, 1974.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    R. Thaller and S. Rosen, “Estimating the Value of Saving a Life: Evidence from the Labor Market.” Preliminary report prepared for the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, New York, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1973.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    R. E. Balzhiser, “Energy Options to the Year 2000,” Chemical Engineering, 74-90, January 3, 1977.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    H. Inhaber, “Risk with Energy from Conventional and Nonconventional Sources,” Science, 203: 718–723, 1979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    P. Slovic, S. Lichtenstein, and B. Fischhoff, “Images of Disaster: Perception and Acceptance of Risks from Nuclear Power.” Prepared for Beijer Institute International Review Seminar on Impacts and Risks of Energy Strategies: Risk Analysis and Role in Management, Stockholm, Sweden, September 1978.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foreign Uranium Supply, Electric Power Research Institute Report EA-725, Research Project 883, April 1978.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    National Energy Outlook, Executive Summary, Federal Energy Administration, 1976.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    H. Linstone, “On Discounting the Future,” Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 4: 335–338, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Midgley, Beast and Man: The Roots of Human Nature, Harvester Press, London, 1979.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    D. Callahan, “Morality and Risk-Benefit Analysis,” prepared for the Congress/Science Forum, Risk/Benefit Analysis: Its Role in Congressional Science and Technology Policy Decisions; Cosponsored by the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology and Space; the House Subcommittee on Science, Research and Technology; and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in Washington, D.C., July 24–25, 1979.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard C. Schwing
    • 1
  1. 1.General Motors Research LaboratoriesWarrenUSA

Personalised recommendations