JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for ENVIROETHICS Archives


ENVIROETHICS Archives

ENVIROETHICS Archives


enviroethics@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS Home

ENVIROETHICS  2002

ENVIROETHICS 2002

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: benefit/cost was Re: Lomborg, was Re: Patrick Moore

From:

Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Discussion forum for environmental ethics.

Date:

Tue, 21 May 2002 23:45:57 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (155 lines)

To the List Owners, including *both* of you:

I find the comments from "Steve" to me & others particularly offensive.  It
seems to me that one can disagree with another without trying to denigrate
the other person.  As "Steve" has a propensity to do and has done to me here
below.  But, while you list owners castigate others for being offensive, you
seem to allow "Steve" the lattitude to insult anyone who holds an opinion
with which he disagrees.

But, perhaps he merely articulates your own opinions of those who hold
points of view different from yours?  I would like to  have a response from
**both** of you.   I might say that I have a tendency to respond to others
in the same vein that they use toward me.  So expect that my response to
"Steve boy" are within his own terms. /  Ray
--------------

Hello Steve:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2002 10:12 PM
Subject: Re: benefit/cost was Re: Lomborg, was Re: Patrick Moore


> --- Ray Lanier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
>
> > The value biases appear in a number of ways.  For example, the
> > analyses were/are based on *economic* benefits & costs.  That is,
>
> Ahem.  These are not *economic* benefits and costs, but monetary
> costs and benefits.

Ray here:

In my experience, economic benefits & costs are expressed in monetary terms.
However, the distinction is that social, cultural, environmental, etc.,
values have only minimal relationship to "monetary costs & benefits" and are
not reflected in those terms.  If you think differently, please provide some
logical arguments.
-------------
>
>
>
> > only a comparison of market values are relevant.  To the extent
> > that social, cultural, environmental values are brought in to the
> > equation, they are expressed in market values gained or lost -
> > according to the received wisdom.  The gains or losses of social,
> > cultural, environmental values are not analyzed in their own terms,
> > their own value set, the unique world view that underlies those
> > values.  In effect, the b/c procedure commensurates
> > incommensurables.
> >
> > Another bias, following from the above bias relates to the way and
> > type of data that are selected, deemed relevant to the b/c analysis
> > within the above context.  The data selected and the data
> > interpretation are made within the materialistic/economic paradigm.
> >  Data that are/might be more relevant to those members of society
> > who value environmental, social, cultural values are not deemed
> > significant to the mainstream system.
> >
> > Now, I am not saying that the people who do these analyses are
> > evil.  They come to the analysis in that posture because they have
>
> Gee Ray, I'd never think you'd imply that. [/sarcasm]

Ray here:
It seems to me that an *intellectual* discussion of an issue is not enhanced
by "sarcasm".  That attitude, in my experience, merely impedes, distracts
from the discussion.  And, in my view is sophomoric and contemptible.
--------------
>
>
> > that same value propensity.  All of you should know that a company,
> > a political party can hire an economist, for example, who will
> > provide them with the sort of answer that that particular entity
> > desires.  They hire those specialists/technicians/professors who
> > hold their own value sets.
> >
> > I am not so naive as to think that bias can be erradicated; nor do
> > I think it *should* be.  The individuating biases contribute to new
> > & different ways of thinking about a question/problem.  Einstein
> > was the great intellectual at least in part because he was thinking
> > "out of the box".  And I think that even the least of us can make a
> > contribution to our understanding because of our own individual
> > bias.
> >
> > In my view, an analysis of the sort of public issues that Lomberg
> > addresses should provide information about positive and negative
> > effects *in the terms* that are relevant to people who hold value
> > sets along the continuum of values within the community.  Even
> > developers, miners, forest company people, etc.,
>
> What you are asking for is ultimately impossible.  It boils down to,
> at least in part, getting people to reveal unobservables.  Now people
> being what they are will often misrepresent these unobservables
> (welfare being one of them).  Even in a small group achieving
> "truth-telling" is extremely difficult if not outright impossible.
> Further, a continuum of "values" would require having information
> that nobody likely has access to.

Ray here:
Steve, it is obvious that you are not familiar with the literature on
Multiple Objective Planning, Multiple alternatives/Multiple Aspects, (MAMA)
etc.  Perhaps you might benefit if you were to try to get outside the box by
doing a little literature research in this field.
---------------
>
> Does this mean that benefit/cost analyses should not be done.
> Absolutely not.  In fact, Ray's extremist position above is, I feel
> highly counter productive.  Instead, a more reasonable approach would
> be to do the analysis, but to be cognizant of these short comings of
> benefit/cost analysis.  I am not sure where Ray learned about
> benefit/cost analysis, but when it was first introduced to me the
> shortcomings of it were quickly brought up.
>

Ray here:

Have you ever *done* benefit/cost analysis in the public domain?  I think it
has much to offer *within* a particular company/corporation where the
objective function is very simple/well defined.  But it radically distorts
the analysis in the public domain.

I am not surprised that you did not learn about the sorts of limits to b/c I
have noted; nor am I surprised that you have not learned about valid
alternatives to that procedure for the public domain - unfortunately, you
seem to have been constrained to an education in the economic discipline and
have not had the intellectual capacity to question your received wisdom
since your grad school days.

I've been there.

> Saying this type of analysis has problems and therefore one is going
> to avoid them, is like noting a hammer is not appropriate for the
> given task and then never carrying a hammer in your tool kit.

Ray here:

Well Steve, it seems that you are not capable of dealing with the limits of
one particular analytical tool and then trying to find others which might
reduce those limits.  You apparently are so young and inexperienced that you
accept without question the received wisdom.  If you don't change, you will
find that in your old age you will have fallen so far behind new ideas that
you don't even recognize the problems and benefits for the new world that
the the several protaganists have in store for us.

May I suggest that you "get with it"?  You have alot to learn and the
learning process is not enhanced by sophomoric comments that you have the
tendency to make.  Grow up.

Ray

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
May 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
February 2018
January 2018
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
September 2016
August 2016
June 2016
May 2016
March 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
October 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
July 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
October 2008
September 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
October 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager