The value of human life is orthogonal to economic value, and doesn't follow the same rules. It works like fine art. The price of art doesn't move towards a final value; paintings bought and sold for centuries still appreciate faster than inflation. They aren't getting any better, the only thing that's changing is the amount of money people have to spend on paintings.

Human life appreciates the same way. In some number of years the government will decide that the economy can sustain valuing human life at a trillion dollars. And they'll look back at us and see that we undervalued life in the same way that we can look back and see that the Romans undervalued human life. Lives are worth whatever we can afford.

> Wrong

They said they saw a difference.

They didn’t say other people didn’t see a difference.

>"They said they saw a difference."

Which would be the point, that there are no fundamental differences between corporate assets and human lives.

If I say I like cats, and you find an article saying someone else doesn’t like cats, that does not mean I’m mistaken on the fact that I like cats.

You seem to think they said that ‘everyone sees a difference’. They didn’t. They said ‘I see a difference’. They’re only ‘wrong’ about that if you think they’re lying to us about their own personal position.

I edited my original comment to now say "The idea that there are fundamental differences between human lives and corporate assets is flawed."

Thank you for your logic lesson but I fail to see how this changes the discussion.