The More There is of Something, The Less Valuable It Becomes, Including People's Value of Other People

Submitted by NewOldSalt on Thu, Jun 12, 2008 - 2:22 am

I doubt anyone's going to paint me as an economic genius, but even I know that the more there is of something, the less people tend to value it.*

Sorry to say, but on this planet, this includes other people.

This is not something I just made up, or desired would happen. I am pointing out what has already happened.

As long as the surface of the planet is finite, as long as many "resources" are also populations of living things, as long as many resources are finite, humans should consider the upper population limit the planet can handle without collapsing.

Hm... why am I saying such things?

Many human civilizations, or subsets of them, even plant or animal populations have collapsed over the course of history.

With regard to plants, there is a fancy name for it, the description for a piece of land going from one starkly contrasting look (biome) to another, and it often takes thousands, sometimes millions of years.

But is it really desirable to go from having enough fish to eat, to eating up every fish in the ocean or lakes, so there are none left? Or their numbers dwindle to fewer and fewer each year while the number of humans who want to eat fish grows up and up?

Is it desirable to turn the forests in to memories, then forgotten memories, and go from shade to 100% sun from a clear cut?

I SAY NO!!! to those questions.

Want to hear it from a non-religious source?

The problem is not me, the problem is how to deal with belligerent people who demand to have many babies, how to deal with belligerent NATIONS who consider it their right to have as many offspring as possible, even though it is not within their means to take care of all of them, then cause their population to suffer and/or encourage them to shove off and invade foreign lands. And how to deal with religions who consider it their duty to have as many offspring as possible, or are trying to create huge populations to subdue "democracies."

Like I've linked to often in this essay, read "Collapse" and you can see that throughout history many societies have destroyed themselves from the inside out by overpopulating and its effects, deforestation, making their food sources extinct, etc… The main difference is "back then" they were only destroying themselves and their small part of the world, I'm sure I don't have to tell you that today things are "global" as our leaders "lead"" us to a race to the bottom.

If you don't want to read all of Collapse, just turn to the part about Easter Island: population growth, deforestation, species extinction, grievous infighting, cannibalism, etc…

Walking this path I advise is a narrow prospect. Other books to read: Brave New World, 1 Timothy 4:1-6. Somehow we need to educate and offer incentives to people, not crush them with rules and punishment. I think we also need to recognize we need to be smart and not think of "growth" as the only salvation, because the logical conclusion of always trying to create bigger and bigger populations to support previous generations is the whole point of this essay.

* There is an exception, but it's not a good one. Greed causes folks to create artificial shortages, hide abundance, hoard abundance, and lie about scarcity and value.

2008-07-14 - Update

The US Government is putting a smaller dollar value on the amount of how they calculate a human life. I am not sure of the reason(s), but I would add that when you hear them, take them with a grain of salt. I haven't read all the details yet, but here are some pointers:

In related news, among my findings is another similar situation in 2003. On the EPA's web site is testimony of a man testifying something to the effect that (some in) the US Government were using spreadsheets to calculate a devaluation of a person/people's life, in order to by-pass laws or regulations.

Testament:

Book:

General Reason:

  • Log in to post comments
  • 3147 reads

Comments

NewOldSalt

Tue, Jul 15, 2008 - 12:29 pm

The information in the articles indicates the EPA is using a smaller dollar value for a human life in order to by-pass regulations that require a calculation of how expensive a particular measure will be.

For example, if a certain measure is going to cost $100 to implement and supposedly save 100 lives, and if each life is valued at $1, the government calculates the expenditure is "worth it".

However, let's imagine there are some people who really don't want to spend that $100 to fix the problem. The "easiest" thing to do, is to modify the value of a person from $1 to 50 cents.

The new calculation shows that the 100 lives saved equals $50. So they can now purport that it's not worth it to spend $100 to fix the problem when only $50 worth of human lives are affected.

How do they calculate the value of a human life? I don't know. You'll have to search that out yourself.

My point, which is bolstered by this news, stays unaffected, most people consider it a basic tenet of economics: the more there is of something, the less valuable it becomes.

alsmusic

Wed, Feb 11, 2009 - 12:06 am

It is indeed sickening to see how lost & in the dark our "deciders" have become.

If something can be de-valued, as above, by a monetary yardstick of "worth" then it doesn't count. I'm not saying humans or life do not count; I'm saying this yardstick is not proper "instrumentation" for determining relative values and therefore its measurements do not count.
i.e.,
Forests count no matter what dollar value is given them by avaricious, sociopathic control freaks. Without forests, there would be no complex life on earth. Without forests, humankind will not survive. Forests naturally capture and sequester CO2 and other pollutions(among many other beneficial gifts to life). FDR did the right thing to create public works re-forestation projects. Life needs Brother BHO to follow FDR's example all the way down the line (with or without improvements). We can never have too many forests. Their true value will never be diminished by any "law" or measurement of Man.

The "three hawks ..." that must be overcome for us to change are FEAR, IGNORANCE & GREED. ("hawk" is the I Ching metaphor; I'm not referring to war hawks per se, but they are included nonetheless) Any yardstick based on these is false.
The opposite of these would be something like, faith, wisdom & love. Philosophically, it seems a no-brainer that these are therefore the path away from the "three hawks". This is how to plant trees. We can never have enough.

NewOldSalt Admin

Wed, Aug 5, 2009 - 4:03 pm

Recently I saw some news which reported the cost (not including birth and college) of raising a child in a "middle income" family is now $291,570, up from last year (no surprise there).

I for one, have nearly always been offended at the saying "cost of living" since it implies God created us to pay to be alive. And I am certain God never had any plans to keep charging us more and more to "stay alive."

http://www.PublicBroadcasting.net/wypr/news.newsmain/article/0/0/1538520/US/Pricetag.to.raise.a.child.--.$291.570..says.U.S.

http://www.Reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE57367220090804

http://www.TheFreeLibrary.com/Pricetag+to+raise+a+child+--+$291,570,+says+U.S.-a01611957050

NewOldSalt Admin

Wed, Jul 21, 2010 - 6:50 pm

Just what they were working for.

China boomtown migrants sorely underpaid

http://www.Reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66I0HD20100719

See the creative writing piece, Out of the Sea Inc., Out of the Earth Inc., and Mystery Inc. Announce the Firing of Their Last Non-Executive Employees, which is an attempt to personify Revelation 13.