[hmkpoker]

And thus we open the can of worms that Sklansky opened a few months ago, with a series of uncomfortable questions structured as "would you rather save this, or this?" And eventually we'll boil it down to the fact that the value of human life is variable and relative. I assume that most people here have figured that out by now.

Now here's a REAL question.

Is there a "best" or "better" method of judging the value of human life, so as to provide the most benefit to the most people?