3 ms·

I fully subscribe to your point of view. Now, what's the approximate probable cost of those unpredictable consequences?

mcantelon 16y ago
Being unpredictable, the conservative approach would be to look at worst case scenarios. So far I haven't heard much and would be interested in these predictions as well.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- billswift 16y ago
  No, the conservative approach is to look at past extinctions and see that there is little or no impact. Too many extinctions in too short of time may have different results, but the environmentalist whining is just plain irrational.
  - tod_ 16y ago
    Precisely what mass, multiple species, large-area extinction events are you using as your barometer? The environment is infrastructure. This is destroying huge swaths of it.
  - mcantelon 16y ago
    It doesn't seem irrational to conclude that we live in a complex system that we don't understand and accelerating changes to this system, due to unprecedented human population and capabilities, could affect human survival. Ignoring risk isn't a conservative approach.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
As the consequences are unpredictable, the approximate probable cost is unpredictable. You haven't convinced me that everything has a price. Here, you cannot predict the result therefore you cannot predict the cost value of the result. There's an easier way of stating that: it's priceless. For arguments sake though, what is the dollar figure you require to murder all your friends, all your family and then commit suicide ... can't be priceless so are we talking $10,000 or closer to $10,000,000,000?
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  It would take a lot, you've got that right. For one thing, I wouldn't be alive to enjoy the payment. I wouldn't do it to save the lives of the same number of other people. I probably wouldn't even do it to save twice as many other people. At ten times as many I'd waver. If you want me to kill everyone I know and then myself in order to save the lives of a hundred times as many, I'd probably do it. Maybe. They'd have to be some pretty damn awesome people I'm saving, and there'd have to be no other way. I wouldn't do it for poor starving people in Africa, that's for sure (You could probably save the lives of a million Africans for a lot less than you'd think . . . I wouldn't murder everyone I knew for a billion dollars and that would probably be enough to save a million African lives. Yeah, I'm a little selfish.). But you're right, there is a price. I'd certainly do it to save the entirety of the remainder of humanity. But even then you'd have to convince me that you could deliver on a promise like that, and I'm a tough sell.
  - OpieCunningham 16y ago
    So there is no dollar figure. OK then. Pretty much my point. But since we're not dealing with a dollar figure, as your original post indicated and many of your follow ups required, you're right. Nothing is priceless and in exchange for killing off an entire species I require everlasting world peace. Make it so, number 1.
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      On the contrary, there certainly is a dollar figure, but it's far higher than any individual would be able to provide. That dollar figure is: whatever amount of money-effort it would take to save one hundred times as many people as the people I love, such that that one hundred times as many people were at least as good as the people I was killing. Probably north of a hundred billion dollars but south of ten trillion. I know it's a big range, but for some amount of money in there I'd probably do it. > Nothing is priceless and in exchange for killing off an entire species I require everlasting world peace. LOL. How much money would it cost to provide everlasting peace? Probably far more than the total economic output of the world in a year (that's sixty-six trillion dollars). Let's suppose you could do it for just sixty-six. That means sixty-five is not enough, and you'd prefer to save some species from extinction rather than receive sixty-five trillion dollars. Really? So you could either have twelve thousand years worth of National Cancer Institute research. Or you could save this (http://www.lmrcc.org/Ecosystempage1_html/E-T%20Species/LA%20Pearlshell.htm http://www.lmrcc.org/Ecosystempage1_html/E-T%20Species/LA%20...). I can't really understand your prioritization, and I vehemently disagree.

Being unpredictable, the conservative approach would be to look at worst case scenarios. So far I haven't heard much and would be interested in these predictions as well.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
billswift 16y ago
No, the conservative approach is to look at past extinctions and see that there is little or no impact. Too many extinctions in too short of time may have different results, but the environmentalist whining is just plain irrational.
- tod_ 16y ago
  Precisely what mass, multiple species, large-area extinction events are you using as your barometer? The environment is infrastructure. This is destroying huge swaths of it.
- mcantelon 16y ago
  It doesn't seem irrational to conclude that we live in a complex system that we don't understand and accelerating changes to this system, due to unprecedented human population and capabilities, could affect human survival. Ignoring risk isn't a conservative approach.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

As the consequences are unpredictable, the approximate probable cost is unpredictable. You haven't convinced me that everything has a price. Here, you cannot predict the result therefore you cannot predict the cost value of the result. There's an easier way of stating that: it's priceless. For arguments sake though, what is the dollar figure you require to murder all your friends, all your family and then commit suicide ... can't be priceless so are we talking $10,000 or closer to $10,000,000,000?

houseabsolute 16y ago
It would take a lot, you've got that right. For one thing, I wouldn't be alive to enjoy the payment. I wouldn't do it to save the lives of the same number of other people. I probably wouldn't even do it to save twice as many other people. At ten times as many I'd waver. If you want me to kill everyone I know and then myself in order to save the lives of a hundred times as many, I'd probably do it. Maybe. They'd have to be some pretty damn awesome people I'm saving, and there'd have to be no other way. I wouldn't do it for poor starving people in Africa, that's for sure (You could probably save the lives of a million Africans for a lot less than you'd think . . . I wouldn't murder everyone I knew for a billion dollars and that would probably be enough to save a million African lives. Yeah, I'm a little selfish.). But you're right, there is a price. I'd certainly do it to save the entirety of the remainder of humanity. But even then you'd have to convince me that you could deliver on a promise like that, and I'm a tough sell.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  So there is no dollar figure. OK then. Pretty much my point. But since we're not dealing with a dollar figure, as your original post indicated and many of your follow ups required, you're right. Nothing is priceless and in exchange for killing off an entire species I require everlasting world peace. Make it so, number 1.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    On the contrary, there certainly is a dollar figure, but it's far higher than any individual would be able to provide. That dollar figure is: whatever amount of money-effort it would take to save one hundred times as many people as the people I love, such that that one hundred times as many people were at least as good as the people I was killing. Probably north of a hundred billion dollars but south of ten trillion. I know it's a big range, but for some amount of money in there I'd probably do it. > Nothing is priceless and in exchange for killing off an entire species I require everlasting world peace. LOL. How much money would it cost to provide everlasting peace? Probably far more than the total economic output of the world in a year (that's sixty-six trillion dollars). Let's suppose you could do it for just sixty-six. That means sixty-five is not enough, and you'd prefer to save some species from extinction rather than receive sixty-five trillion dollars. Really? So you could either have twelve thousand years worth of National Cancer Institute research. Or you could save this (http://www.lmrcc.org/Ecosystempage1_html/E-T%20Species/LA%20Pearlshell.htm http://www.lmrcc.org/Ecosystempage1_html/E-T%20Species/LA%20...). I can't really understand your prioritization, and I vehemently disagree.