> When people are asked to trade their sacred values for values considered to be secular—what psychologist Philip Tetlock refers to as a “taboo tradeoff”—they exhibit moral outrage, express anger and disgust, become increasingly inflexible in negotiations, and display an insensitivity to a strict cost-benefit analysis of the exchange. What’s more, when people receive monetary offers for relinquishing a sacred value, they display a particularly striking irrationality. Not only are people unwilling to compromise sacred values for money—contrary to classic economic theory’s assumption that financial incentives motivate behavior—but the inclusion of money in an offer produces a backfire effect such that people become even less likely to give up their sacred values compared to when an offer does not include money. People consider trading sacred values for money so morally reprehensible that they recoil at such proposals.

[1]: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2012/tables/12s1103.p...

I'm guessing these 404 pages aren't at all cost-effective. The chances of saving a life are incredibly low, and the cost of implementing and maintaining them is pretty high. Also, there's value lost to users. They'll see a missing child instead of helpful navigation suggestions.

These things sound inconsequential compared to a human life, but they add up extremely quickly. Our minds can't intuitively do the math.

Whether that fits here or not I'm not sure.

Ah, one of my favorite arguments. The good 'ol, "there is no price which is too high to save a life (period, full-stop)".

Do you actually believe that? Really? Or am I just reading you wrong here?

After all, why shall we even try to save human lives?

According to the current population growth rate[1], we have a relatively high supply of humans on earth, so anyone dying or disappearing will most definitely be replaced within a short period of time. Merge that data with the kidnapping statistics[2] and you'll see there's nothing to worry about.

Moreover, a child had likely not accomplished much in his life, so his disappearance could only affect a limited number of people.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth [2]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kidnapping#Statistics

There's no obvious-to-me level to look from where this argument applies to humans, but not to pet cats and dogs.

If it's really that much ineffective as some are arguing, I think the costs to our mental health far outweigh the benefits.

Based on this, your question of "Are you an only child?" seems only to be helpful to your argument when used against people with a relatively small amount of siblings of a particular gender. This condition is, let's be honest, a relatively new development in the first world and simply doesn't generally exist in the developing world.

There's got to be a better way.

Over-exposure will only serve to desensitize us to worthy causes. Everything in moderation.

That means you have to think a little bit about the cost and benefit of doing something.

You cannot save all children.

That is a good sentiment, but unfortunately it's not how a lot of society works. For example, many people die of poor nutrition, or from lack of the best medical care. If the wealth of the top 30% of the population (y'know all the billionares, millionares & upper class (maybe some middle class)) was confiscated then we could save these lives. However many societies do not make this decision, for some societies & cultures, that price is too high.