>> b) Some other, smaller, amount along with a list of the effects you have discounted from the full amount and justification for such discounting.
> Well it's certainly got to be this one since reversing every effect is entropically impossible.
So you concede that there may be elements to this disaster that cannot be quantified as such quantification is entropically impossible?
> I feel this way except inasmuch as human beings depend on such wildlife for economic sustenance. Although it sucks that the animals die, if they are not used directly by humans the utility lost when a common animal dies is typically far less than the cost of saving it in an oil spill like this.
Often yes I agree with you. Although that is not an absolute. Very often species form part of the larger ecosystem so the extinction of a species not directly used by humans may cause difficulties if it is necessary for the continued survival of another species which IS directly used by humans.
> Looking at the worst case scenario: let's say that the entire gulf becomes unfishable for the next fifty years except if the U.S. spends a quarter of its total output during that time period cleaning it up.
Aieeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaargh!
:)
>> Alternatively, you can be gracious and concede the point that if there are alternatives to high-risk offshore oil wells . . .
> That is not even a point under discussion. Why did you bring it up? What makes you think I support offshore drilling?
My bad, I completely misread you.
I think you will be sympathetic to my mistake given that cost/benefit arguments stated in dollar terms are so commonly used to justify ideas that would still be bad no matter how good the numbers looked.
> So you concede that there may be elements to this disaster that cannot be quantified as such quantification is entropically impossible?
No, I'm quantifying it in terms of how much I'd want to see paid to avoid that outcome, or in terms of how much would need to be spent to "make it right" to my own satisfaction. There's nothing about such a quantification that is entropically impossible. Put another way, there's basically no possible outcome of this disaster that you could not pay me _some_ amount of money to endure. But the amount might have to be very high.
> Very often species form part of the larger ecosystem . . .
I agreed elsewhere that that would have to be taken into account when calculating the total cost.
> Aieeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaargh!
Yeah, that's pretty bad, right? Hopefully that is the worst case scenario, but I'm no biologist so I'd have to leave that to them. One of my friends tells me that oil does break down in water over time and that it is unlikely it would be that bad.
But even if that were to happen, life would go on, albeit worse than before. This account of the after affects of the gulf war spill (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War_oil_spill) gives me some hope that although there will doubtless be great harm from this spill, it is not going to be the end of the world.
> cost/benefit arguments stated in dollar terms
OK, I see where you are coming from. I am entirely amenable to the outcome being that offshore drilling is not worth it given the extent of this disaster. Personally I think gasoline should cost much more than it does in the U.S. today, and that would go some way toward making that a reality. But I do want to look at it honestly.
> Well it's certainly got to be this one since reversing every effect is entropically impossible.
So you concede that there may be elements to this disaster that cannot be quantified as such quantification is entropically impossible?
> I feel this way except inasmuch as human beings depend on such wildlife for economic sustenance. Although it sucks that the animals die, if they are not used directly by humans the utility lost when a common animal dies is typically far less than the cost of saving it in an oil spill like this.
Often yes I agree with you. Although that is not an absolute. Very often species form part of the larger ecosystem so the extinction of a species not directly used by humans may cause difficulties if it is necessary for the continued survival of another species which IS directly used by humans.
> Looking at the worst case scenario: let's say that the entire gulf becomes unfishable for the next fifty years except if the U.S. spends a quarter of its total output during that time period cleaning it up.
Aieeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaargh!
:)
>> Alternatively, you can be gracious and concede the point that if there are alternatives to high-risk offshore oil wells . . .
> That is not even a point under discussion. Why did you bring it up? What makes you think I support offshore drilling?
My bad, I completely misread you.
I think you will be sympathetic to my mistake given that cost/benefit arguments stated in dollar terms are so commonly used to justify ideas that would still be bad no matter how good the numbers looked.