3 ms·

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 ot

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.
  - OpieCunningham 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. With so many arbitrary qualifications there, how could you begin to evaluate the net result? Or simply, what is "at least as good as"? > 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). Continuing with the hypothetical, the species that will disappear would have prevented a global pandemic that wipes out all of humanity. And here you weren't willing to pass on a single years worth of global economic output to save the species that saved humanity. How could you! I can't really understand your prioritization, and I vehemently disagree. There's a Zen koan that I'm going to murder here: A boy in a village falls from his horse and breaks his leg. The village elders gather around the monk and cry "oh no, how terrible! isn't this sad for the boy to break his leg?" To which the monk replies "perhaps it is, perhaps it is not". The elders walk away in bemusement. A week passes and the despot ruler of the kindom declares war against a peaceful neighbor. Soldiers come to the village to round up all the able young men to fight. The boy with the broken leg is passed over. The village elders gather around the monk and cry "oh how fortunate for the boy to have broken his leg so that he does not have to go off to war and die! isn't it fortunate for the boy?" To which the monk replies "perhaps it is, perhaps it is not". It's a Zen koan, so the meaning is probably buried layer under layer (assuming there's a meaning at all). But perhaps it means that everything is priceless because you can never know the real value of anything.
    - khafra 16y ago
      Here's a more modern koan: "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong--but betting the other direction at even odds is stupid."
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      > how could you begin to evaluate the net result It's not always easy to estimate large prices . . . that doesn't mean there isn't one. > Continuing with the hypothetical, the species that will disappear would have prevented a global pandemic that wipes out all of humanity I can see why you would factor that into your estimate, considering there have been so many species to go extinct so far that have had that property. The difference between your part of the hypothetical and mine is that mine is a likely understatement of the costs for your demand, and yours is a likely overstatement of the value of an extinct species. Let's put it another way where quibbles over estimates and hypotheticals would not come into play. You said that the minimum you would accept for one extinct species is world peace. That means that any less value than world peace per extinct species is not sufficient. So if I were to offer you world peace in exchange for two extinct species, you would presumably turn that offer down. Say, this species of mussels and a species of bottle fly. Now I very much doubt that this is actually true: you seem to be more than capable of putting two and two together. But it does mean that your claim that world peace was your minimum price for an extinction was false.

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.
- OpieCunningham 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. With so many arbitrary qualifications there, how could you begin to evaluate the net result? Or simply, what is "at least as good as"? > 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). Continuing with the hypothetical, the species that will disappear would have prevented a global pandemic that wipes out all of humanity. And here you weren't willing to pass on a single years worth of global economic output to save the species that saved humanity. How could you! I can't really understand your prioritization, and I vehemently disagree. There's a Zen koan that I'm going to murder here: A boy in a village falls from his horse and breaks his leg. The village elders gather around the monk and cry "oh no, how terrible! isn't this sad for the boy to break his leg?" To which the monk replies "perhaps it is, perhaps it is not". The elders walk away in bemusement. A week passes and the despot ruler of the kindom declares war against a peaceful neighbor. Soldiers come to the village to round up all the able young men to fight. The boy with the broken leg is passed over. The village elders gather around the monk and cry "oh how fortunate for the boy to have broken his leg so that he does not have to go off to war and die! isn't it fortunate for the boy?" To which the monk replies "perhaps it is, perhaps it is not". It's a Zen koan, so the meaning is probably buried layer under layer (assuming there's a meaning at all). But perhaps it means that everything is priceless because you can never know the real value of anything.
  - khafra 16y ago
    Here's a more modern koan: "The race is not always to the swift, nor the battle to the strong--but betting the other direction at even odds is stupid."
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    > how could you begin to evaluate the net result It's not always easy to estimate large prices . . . that doesn't mean there isn't one. > Continuing with the hypothetical, the species that will disappear would have prevented a global pandemic that wipes out all of humanity I can see why you would factor that into your estimate, considering there have been so many species to go extinct so far that have had that property. The difference between your part of the hypothetical and mine is that mine is a likely understatement of the costs for your demand, and yours is a likely overstatement of the value of an extinct species. Let's put it another way where quibbles over estimates and hypotheticals would not come into play. You said that the minimum you would accept for one extinct species is world peace. That means that any less value than world peace per extinct species is not sufficient. So if I were to offer you world peace in exchange for two extinct species, you would presumably turn that offer down. Say, this species of mussels and a species of bottle fly. Now I very much doubt that this is actually true: you seem to be more than capable of putting two and two together. But it does mean that your claim that world peace was your minimum price for an extinction was false.