That's more of a fun answer to those who absolutely want to put a value and make a matter of "fair calculation" of everything, nothing to be taken too seriously

That's more of a fun answer to those who absolutely want to put a value and make a matter of "fair calculation" of everything, nothing to be taken too seriously. Still, that gives some relief to the absurd notion that drives all economics that only human labour and capital have value, and that resources are infinite and free. Then, that "rational" economic considerations should drive our policies (instead of common, democratic deliberation around our competing wants and wishes, impossible to subsume into any sort of rational calculation). Should we want to consume as much as possible as fast as we can, then disappear from the face of a scorched Earth? Or should we change radically our ways to make human life sustainable on the long term? This isn't a matter of reason, only of collective preference, that can only be decided through debate. The only thing open to calculation is what the future will be, if we do this, or that. But what future we want isn't a rational matter, and shouldn't be dictated by "those in the know", or even worse, "those in power" (irk).