Talk:Value of Earth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Environment
Portal		 This environment-related article is part of the Environment WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized.
See WikiProject Environment and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Joke

I start the bidding at $2. Do I hear $3?

  • $π*√2 Sbp 18:00, Apr 11 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This topic suffer many large bias

  • you can't buy you own and always surrounding environment on that point of view the price is infinite ?
  • buying it from who ?
  • selling it to who ?
  • I see only one kind of dealers, some sort of intergalactic ultra advanced (and not much ethics!) civilisations, definitivelly not any potential reader!
  • the real question is why are we not able to maintain an sustainable equilibrium ? And the answer holds into our small selfish brains! Time to wake up!

[edit] critics to the calculation

Two points to the argumentation of the calculation:

1. Because of the almost uniquity of earth (in economic terms) its value has to be calculated based on the current replacement value. Which includes space exploration, sample tests, probes, terraforming, settlement, transport and the required R&D.

2. The argumentation that 8 ppl had at least cost x mio $ and therefore all ppl. would cost x/8*population $ is wrong because of disregard of several synergy and multiplication effects. The world is not linear but systematic and therefore not even linear approximations are valid in my point of view.

[edit] Is Calculation Needed?

There is no such thing as "natural capital" capital is produced as a product of land and labour. Natural resources simply exist until they are used up. As such every individual born into the world has an equal right to use these resources. There is no human life, no labor and no capital without access to land to ask the value of the earth is to ask the value of life. For if mankind does not exist then there is no VALUE. The concept is a totally human contrivance just as good and evil.

--The Trucker 20:19, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary

This is much like arguing about kings value in chess programs.When you lose the king you lose the game.

[edit] Green Politics only? I dont think so.

I bet some people actually seriously think this out and analyze what planets could be worth in comparison to our current currencies, especially the Earth. This "worth" could be extrapolated from various resources, production options, and geographical features and occurences. I doubt that this is just a tool for Green Politics to say that the earth is priceless.--Exander 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biosphere 2 reference

Making a reference to Biosphere 2 is all well and good. However, this article claims that since the cost of Biosphere 2 was unable to support the people inside it, the cost of replacing the Earth must be more for every person then Biosphere 2 cost given the same technology. In other words, that everything involved in building a habitable structure on the surface of a planet scales directly up to what's involved in building a new habitable planet. To me this seems like a very presumptuous claim, and taking into consideration the kind of processes that would be used to make a planet, I would hardly hesitate to pronounce it not just presumptuous but probably flat-out wrong. I don't have much time myself right at the moment, but I suggest that someone get around to changing this reference to be more scientific, or possibly deleting it altogether if that becomes necessary. - green_meklar 22:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is value?

This article seems to make the assumption that the value of something is determined by the cost of producing it. It would be just as expensive to produce a replica of the planet Venus, but how valuable would it be? In fact, value is subjective. I don't particularly care about Venus, while an astronomer might feel otherwise. As such, I'm debating whether to tag this article for a complete rewrite. -- Scott eiπ 05:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)