As provocative as the statement “if it saves just one life, it is worth it” can be, it is worthy of no respect in a world where scarce resources have alternative uses. Many of the alternatives themselves save human lives in different ways. Few things have saved as many lives as the growth of wealth.

Calculating the proportion of national income rise to lives saved has been attempted by many and proves challenging. However much it is, a safety law, policy, or device that prevents increases in national wealth has to offset that cost. If a law costs the economy $X and saves 20 lives, but a rise of $X would have saved 21 lives, it wasn’t worth it.

Nobody truly considers their life of infinite value - if we did, we wouldn’t ever get into a car again. Using methods to estimate how much money is needed to compensate for the extra risk in similar occupations, we can sense how much a person values their life. We often end up with a figure of around $10 million. If life is not of infinite value, then it is not true that any cost is worth bearing to save a single life - especially with an appreciation that we are inevitably sacrificing other lives.