Li et al.
One of the earliest stages of the policy cycle is consideration of
alternatives. However, that is a beginning stage, not a stage of
analysis, which is what Lomborg has done. To be fair this isn't new with
Lomborg, it is an old time political method to obscure the issue. If
your political opponent has a record of working for social welfare, you
accuse them of being 'soft on crime,' and if they were focused on crime
you accuse them of being 'for the wealthy.' The idea is to offer
meaningless alternatives to whatever is being considered rather than
address the issue at hand. Economists have simply given this some sort
of credibility by labeling it 'opportunity costs.' No matter what you
chose to spend the money on, the opportunity to spent it on something
else is lost. It is a tautology, but it sounds reasonable.
Sb
Nothing is true, all is permitted, nothing
is true, all is permitted, nothing is true,
all is permitted, nothing is true. . .
The Adventures of Omar Khyyam
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion forum for environmental ethics.
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Lisa Dangutis
Sent: Wednesday, September 04, 2002 7:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Lomborg
In a message dated 9/4/02 11:52:08 PM GMT Daylight Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Bissell here:
Let me get this straight; the only way *not* to lose the opportunity
costs (sunk) is to do nothing? If we do nothing where is the money? See
the cat, see the cradle?
Steven
To say that "I will not be free till all
humans (or sentient creatures) are free" is
simply to cave in to a kind of nirvana-
stupor, to abdicate our humanity, to define
ourselves as losers. >>
Steve,
Isn't even doing nothing circular logic in that case? Once you do
nothing aren't those costs spent as well. If I spend zero, then I have
lost (sunk) the initial opportunity. Now other opportunities may arrive
but if you do nothing isn't the proccess repeating itself, sort of like
trying to break 1^2 down to 1.
Best
Li-
|