> It's not always easy to estimate large prices . . . that doesn't mean there isn't one.
There isn't one. There are multiple guesses all based upon assumptions and limited knowledge.
Here's an example:
m: I have a book, how much will you give me for it?
f: Uh, nothing, I don't want a random book.
m: I forgot to mention it's a first printing Tom Sawyer.
f: Oh, ok. I'll give you $10 for it.
m: Collectors regularly pay $5000 for it.
f: OK. How about $1000?
m: It's signed by Mark Twain.
f: $2000?
m: It's missing a cover.
f: $500?
etc.
Which value was the true value of the book?
Value is entirely contingent upon knowledge, which is always imperfect. Given just two pieces of information - the oil spill is damaging the environment and a species may become extinct - it is entirely within the realm of reason to state that there is no dollar value that can be assigned to that extinction. Therefore that species becomes priceless. Given more information the value of the species may become something less than priceless. And given even more information the value may become priceless once again.
That an exact value cannot be arrived upon just by thinking about the issue in no way limits the usefulness of estimates. I have shown your estimate of the value of a single likely extinction to be completely out of whack. Your comment seems to indicate you believe I'm trying to arrive at a mathematically perfect resolution, and that my inability to do so is proof that my entire position is without merit. This could not be further from my intent. Any any charitable reading of my comments would have shown that clearly.
There is no species or even combination of species that is threatened by this oil spill that is LIKELY to have anywhere near the value you have assigned by any rational measure. That's my point. If you can't address that point, then there's really nothing more to discuss.
You're right. If you can't accept my examples as a demonstration of the point that nothing has a quantifiable value, there is no point in continuing the discussion.
You're certainly free to guess at any value you wish for any thing you think of. The validity of your guesses will always be directly proportional to the limited extent of your knowledge on the thing. Ultimately, you appear to assign far too much value to the concept of value.
There isn't one. There are multiple guesses all based upon assumptions and limited knowledge.
Here's an example:
m: I have a book, how much will you give me for it?
f: Uh, nothing, I don't want a random book.
m: I forgot to mention it's a first printing Tom Sawyer.
f: Oh, ok. I'll give you $10 for it.
m: Collectors regularly pay $5000 for it.
f: OK. How about $1000?
m: It's signed by Mark Twain.
f: $2000?
m: It's missing a cover.
f: $500?
etc.
Which value was the true value of the book?
Value is entirely contingent upon knowledge, which is always imperfect. Given just two pieces of information - the oil spill is damaging the environment and a species may become extinct - it is entirely within the realm of reason to state that there is no dollar value that can be assigned to that extinction. Therefore that species becomes priceless. Given more information the value of the species may become something less than priceless. And given even more information the value may become priceless once again.