Ok, them if someone probes your value is negative, because for example you have an average job but also you are sick and the cost to keep you alive are high. Them we should get rid of you. Because economically you are not viable.
You cannot make decision based on your economic value. Should we destroy an animal race just because we think their economic value is low? What about the side effects we don't know? what about everybody has the same rights? what about fucking up the environment in some countries because they are poor? What about the poor child that wont have access to proper education? We just don't care because their economic value is low?
Right, things/animals/people have value beyond their economic value. And to make decisions, we need to quantify in some way what this value is. To see this, consider a risk/cost curve for an environmental cleanup:
$100k : 1000 micromorts
$300k : 100 micromorts
$500k : 10 micromorts
$1m : 8 micromorts
$2m : 6 micromorts
$10m : 4 micromorts
$1b : 2 micromorts
$100b : 0.5 micromorts
Practically speaking, there is a need to make decisions which involve tradeoffs between money and other forms of value. Making these kinds of decisions rationally means quantifying non-economic forms of value.
Also, as more food for thought, consider the death penalty, in which a society deems that the true "value" of a person -- distinct from their economic value -- is negative.
You cannot make decision based on your economic value. Should we destroy an animal race just because we think their economic value is low? What about the side effects we don't know? what about everybody has the same rights? what about fucking up the environment in some countries because they are poor? What about the poor child that wont have access to proper education? We just don't care because their economic value is low?