4 ms·
I think his point was that cost-benefit analysis is subjective. Your supposition that it's not limited to monetary concerns alone is valid, but perhaps naive. T
by sh1mmer 18y ago
I think his point was that cost-benefit analysis is subjective. Your supposition that it's not limited to monetary concerns alone is valid, but perhaps naive. The fact that most people don't do a "proper" analysis is the very nature of bias.
If you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument. Perhaps it's a different moral level for many of us, but not to everyone.
As such while his argument used an extreme example, I would not consider it as nonsensical.
- run4yourlives 18y agoIf you talk to many environmentalist they see it very much as a moral argument. And that's the problem. They may as well have a Bible in their hands and go knocking on doors. More people can be swayed by explaining that a particular action has a direct benefit and is therefore more effective than the current one than by saying "repent for the end is near" and "you're a backwards hillbilly who is evil for not seeing this my way".
- newt0311 18y agoIf only that were the case. If there is anything that the modern environmental movement has taught us, it is that religeon is a powerful force regerdless of whether it includes gods or targets academics. For a more nuanced (and defensible) discussion of the topic, refer to "Environtemanetalism as Religeon" by Michael Crichton: http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismasel...