I have to agree with him.
Before the 80s, we had money put aside for replacement of assets when they wore out, and loans were used to enable inter-generational equity. Subsequently, post-economic rationalism, every project had to pay its way from the start, with a significant Internal Rate of Return (more or less and internal version of making a profit), or it wouldn't be funded. As a result, we - the developed world - now collectively have large chunks of infrastructure (sewers and the like) that are about to reach the end of their life (many have already, and hence increasing collapses in roadways and the like), and - thanks to the economic rationalists - no money to fix them!
I consider this problem due entirely to the fallacy of money being given undue importance. This is not quite materialism: the difference is that materialism is about seeking physical goods and saying nonphysical things such as principles have no value, whereas the economic rationalist approach attempts to impose the practice of giving things dollar values - including principles.
The latter approach could actually be worse than materialism in some cases: for instance, assessing the cost of improving an intersection to reduce accidents causing death or injury by comparing the costs of improvements against the assigned monetary "value" of loss of life and injury - which is usually assessed on the basis of income from jobs. The end result of such an approach could be a decision that it is "acceptable" not to improve a dangerous intersection because "only" a few deaths occur ...
On the other hand, someone who is material may argue that physical life is valuable, and there is nothing after it, so we should act to preserve life at all costs. (Incidentally, calculations by General Sir John Monash, who was an engineer, during the First World War, showed the cost of destroying cities by bombardment was around three times the cost of building it - I suspect that sort of principle still applies, the cost of destroying things is much higher than the cost of building, as evidenced by the US's current financial woes.)
In my case, I argue that all life is valuable, and that life experience is also valuable (because of the contribution it makes to nonphysical life, including Deity), and hence we should act to improve matters if we can do so.
When I was a young engineer, one of our clients key staff, a Shire Clerk, argued that we had to cut everything back to a dollar value - including environmental aspects. This view of his was so vehement that he would never refer to "Environmental Impact Statements": he called them "Economic Impact Statements". The idiot didn't understand that, if we have an unsuitable environment, life will be impossible! If we lose all the microbes in the soil for instance, we won't be able to grow plants - and hence no plants or plant-eaters (i.e., things like cattle), so no food - nothing for vegetarians, vegans, fruitarians, omnivores or carnivores.
What dollar value do you put on extinction?
Have a look at this article: "Seventh Major Mass Extinction: or Why I'm a Green Witch", by Treasearch, which is here.
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
(pronounced "new-MYTH-ear")
Tags: environment, economy, responsibility,
First published: Laugardagr, 6th August, 2011
Last edited: Saturday, 6th August, 2011
