In a perfectly rational world, consisting solely of rational agents, strategies for dealing with the diverse health risks facing populations would be governed by the maxims of expected utility theory. But we do not live in a rational world, and acknowledging this empirical fact is important as it can help us bridge the gap between “where we are” and the more fair and humane state of affairs that rational decision making would create. Prospect theory reveals that preferences are in fact dependent on whether particular outcomes of a choice are regarded as “a loss” or “a gain”, relative to a reference point. And this has significant implications concerning how we ought to frame ageing and the imperative to retard human ageing. More specifically, prospect theory reveals the importance of recognising the ultimate, rather than just proximate, causes of disease. Doing so will help ensure that the valuation of age retardation is more rational as greater attention will be placed on the prevention of losses (e.g. risk of cancer, heart disease, etc.) than on the “enhanced” benefits that might be construed as exceeding a person’s “aspiration level for survival”.«
In a perfectly rational world, consisting solely of rational agents, strategies for dealing with the diverse health risks facing populations would be governed by the maxims of expected utility theory. But we do not live in a rational world, and acknowledging this empirical fact is important as it can help us bridge the gap between “where we are” and the more fair and humane state of affairs that rational decision making would create. Prospect theory reveals that preferences are in fact dependent on whether particular outcomes of a choice are regarded as “a loss” or “a gain”, relative to a reference point. And this has significant implications concerning how we ought to frame ageing and the imperative to retard human ageing. More specifically, prospect theory reveals the importance of recognising the ultimate, rather than just proximate, causes of disease. Doing so will help ensure that the valuation of age retardation is more rational as greater attention will be placed on the prevention of losses (e.g. risk of cancer, heart disease, etc.) than on the “enhanced” benefits that might be construed as exceeding a person’s “aspiration level for survival”.«
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-8236911481893124472