On Sat, 11 Aug 2007, Michael Tobis wrote:
> Only partially, though. Back when sci.environment was functional
> Steinn Siegurdsson discussed this matter with regard to large asteroid
> impacts. It is reasonable to consider the cost of an impact sufficient
> to obliterate all animal life on earth as infinite. The risk of being
> imacted by an asteroid, though tiny, is not strictly speaking
> infinitesimal.
Not wishing to start off old discussions again, but I suspect that from an econ
viewpoint it can't be considered infinite cost to lose all life on earth. I
presume that econs would consider the sum total to be of finite value (even if
you assume infinite lifetime of the earth, due to discounting)
-W.
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
