Is a rich person's life more valuable than a poor person's?

[watervole]

Read this on the way the costs of climate change are calculated.

In essence, the cost/benefit calculations of carbon emissions assume that saving time for a rich person is more important than saving a poor person from starvation.  Why?  Because if you look at it in cold, hard dollars, then the rich person's wages per hour are more than the poor person spends on food in a month.  Thus, the economic case for a new airport is that it saves money overall as rich people can get places faster.  If a person in the third world dies as as a result, the impact on the global economy is negligable.

If you're happy with this assessment of the value of human life, then don't let me stop you from flying...

Comments

[camies.livejournal.com]

I don't think anyone wants further expansion of Heathrow (apart from people who are blatantly planning to make money out of it). It won't even provide employment as the area is apparently at full employment for skilled workers.
"Air traffic increase is inevitable"?
Nonsense, evite it at once!

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

This kind of inhuman immorality is pretty much inherent in capitalism, obviously so in the application of market techniques of cost-benefit analysis to projects with social impact, so it seems a bit odd for Monbiot to take this surprised and betrayed tone. How did he expect people's lives were going to be valued?

"I can accept that a unit of measurement which allows us to compare the human costs of different spending decisions is a useful tool. What I cannot accept is that it should be scrambled up with the price of eggs and prefixed with a dollar sign."

Well, unfortunately A necessarily demands B, the maths wouldn't work otherwise. If you buy into A, you can't try and get away without B.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

You're correct.

Junking capitalism outright is not the answer (extreme alternatives are just as bad), but we do need to think more carefully about its effects in many areas. It's essentially the same problem as when subsistence farmers are pushed out to make way for cash crops. (just as we've done in this country in past centuries, with disastrous results for the poor)

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

Mm, blaming the inexorable workings of capitalism is copping out of moral responsibility really.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

I take my own moral responsibility by refusing to fly, buying locally wherever possible, growing most of my own vegetables, eating less meat than I used to (ie. about twice a week) and cycling/walking wherever possible. It's still not ideal - last time I checked we needed just under two planets to allow everyone to live my life-style - but at least I'm well below the UK average.

What do you do?

[undyingking.livejournal.com]

I do the same sorts of things as you (I'm vegetarian, but we probably only grow a quarter or so of our fruit and veg). But I do eg. hop in the car to see my dad once a week, as he's about 50 miles away and not near a train or bus, so goodness knows how much carbon dioxide that generates. And my work could at best be described as eco-neutral.

Things like responsibility to one's family vs responsibility to the rest of the world are the difficult ones to weigh up: at some point in the next few years I'm going to have to go to India to do some things with my family there, and you only can get there by flying really.

[watervole.livejournal.com]

Being vegetarian makes a surprising difference. Run yourself through a carbon footprint calculator and smile when you get to that part. The WWF have one that is pretty easy to use. You're probably ahead of a meat-eating non-car owner (but that's assuming you only do 50 miles a week).

Family is tough. I've made the decision never to go to Canada to see my niece again, but if it was my son I would find that much harder.

[melodyclark.livejournal.com]

Sounds like the thought patterns of the basic sociopathic capitalist.

[hawkeye7.livejournal.com]

An economist would say that you need a better set of property rights so as to more clearly reflect the value of things. This is what Stern is doing regarding climate change - by factoring in all the costs of climate change.

Here in Canberra it has been pointed out that extensions to the airport will wipe out all the ACT government's carbon savings. They're still looking at it.

[kremmen.livejournal.com]

This assessment of the value of human life is constantly happening, just not explicitly. Our countries could give, say, 50% of their (ie. our) income to the poor in other countries and avert many of their deaths.

However, how responsible should we feel? You say that it would take almost 2 planets for everyone to live your lifestyle. Not everyone may want your or my lifestyle. More importantly, those in some other countries have bred to the extent that their land area can't support our lifestyle. How is it our responsibility at all to deal with the ramifications of their choices?

[on-idle-moor.livejournal.com]

Your recent allotment advice has now spread all the way to Bournemouth!

"Tobias Ellwood, MP for Bournemouth East, confronted the group on the Townsend Estate, in his constituency, when they urinated in someone's garden."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7253900.stm

[watervole.livejournal.com]

*We've* bred to the extend that our country cannot support our lifestyle. If Britain was cut off from the rest of the world, could we feed and clothe ourselves at our current level?

I see a difference between not giving money (which at least does not make things worse) and living a carbon-intensive lifestyle which actively makes things worse for the rest of the world.

They are living with the ramifications of our choices.

(I do agree with you that many, if not most, countries are over-populated. It's just that we also happen to be one of them.)