4 ms·

> 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

> 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
> It's not always easy to estimate large prices . . . that doesn't mean there isn't one. There isn't one. There are multiple guesses all based upon assumptions and limited knowledge. Here's an example: m: I have a book, how much will you give me for it? f: Uh, nothing, I don't want a random book. m: I forgot to mention it's a first printing Tom Sawyer. f: Oh, ok. I'll give you $10 for it. m: Collectors regularly pay $5000 for it. f: OK. How about $1000? m: It's signed by Mark Twain. f: $2000? m: It's missing a cover. f: $500? etc. Which value was the true value of the book? Value is entirely contingent upon knowledge, which is always imperfect. Given just two pieces of information - the oil spill is damaging the environment and a species may become extinct - it is entirely within the realm of reason to state that there is no dollar value that can be assigned to that extinction. Therefore that species becomes priceless. Given more information the value of the species may become something less than priceless. And given even more information the value may become priceless once again.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  That an exact value cannot be arrived upon just by thinking about the issue in no way limits the usefulness of estimates. I have shown your estimate of the value of a single likely extinction to be completely out of whack. Your comment seems to indicate you believe I'm trying to arrive at a mathematically perfect resolution, and that my inability to do so is proof that my entire position is without merit. This could not be further from my intent. Any any charitable reading of my comments would have shown that clearly. There is no species or even combination of species that is threatened by this oil spill that is LIKELY to have anywhere near the value you have assigned by any rational measure. That's my point. If you can't address that point, then there's really nothing more to discuss.
- OpieCunningham 16y ago
  You're right. If you can't accept my examples as a demonstration of the point that nothing has a quantifiable value, there is no point in continuing the discussion. You're certainly free to guess at any value you wish for any thing you think of. The validity of your guesses will always be directly proportional to the limited extent of your knowledge on the thing. Ultimately, you appear to assign far too much value to the concept of value.

OpieCunningham 16y ago

> It's not always easy to estimate large prices . . . that doesn't mean there isn't one. There isn't one. There are multiple guesses all based upon assumptions and limited knowledge. Here's an example: m: I have a book, how much will you give me for it? f: Uh, nothing, I don't want a random book. m: I forgot to mention it's a first printing Tom Sawyer. f: Oh, ok. I'll give you $10 for it. m: Collectors regularly pay $5000 for it. f: OK. How about $1000? m: It's signed by Mark Twain. f: $2000? m: It's missing a cover. f: $500? etc. Which value was the true value of the book? Value is entirely contingent upon knowledge, which is always imperfect. Given just two pieces of information - the oil spill is damaging the environment and a species may become extinct - it is entirely within the realm of reason to state that there is no dollar value that can be assigned to that extinction. Therefore that species becomes priceless. Given more information the value of the species may become something less than priceless. And given even more information the value may become priceless once again.

houseabsolute 16y ago
That an exact value cannot be arrived upon just by thinking about the issue in no way limits the usefulness of estimates. I have shown your estimate of the value of a single likely extinction to be completely out of whack. Your comment seems to indicate you believe I'm trying to arrive at a mathematically perfect resolution, and that my inability to do so is proof that my entire position is without merit. This could not be further from my intent. Any any charitable reading of my comments would have shown that clearly. There is no species or even combination of species that is threatened by this oil spill that is LIKELY to have anywhere near the value you have assigned by any rational measure. That's my point. If you can't address that point, then there's really nothing more to discuss.
OpieCunningham 16y ago
You're right. If you can't accept my examples as a demonstration of the point that nothing has a quantifiable value, there is no point in continuing the discussion. You're certainly free to guess at any value you wish for any thing you think of. The validity of your guesses will always be directly proportional to the limited extent of your knowledge on the thing. Ultimately, you appear to assign far too much value to the concept of value.