Dean Forster wrote:
>
>>
>> The concrete example I gave - that if we judge that
>> the life
>> of a child is more valuable than the life of an old
>> person
>> who will die in two years *then* we being to
>> devaluate
>> all human lifes - just shows how pointless
>> cost/benefit
>> analysis is.
>
>A good point, you have proven that cost/benefit
>analysis is imperfect.
>
Actually, I proved that it was *incomplete* as it is
done currently. The imperfection is not a real
problem, as long as we include an estimation of
the imperfection in the method.
>How do we go about measuring
>processes in the real world if we get rid of it? Even
>if we partially do so, we have to have some way of
>quantifying the problem so that we can move forward
>and solve it. If we don't even try to quantify the
>variables, it's not getting us as far as cost/benefit
>analysis did. Or do you propose something that
>completely side steps measurement?
>
I propose that cost/benefit analysis should
include the values of _memes_, and the impact
that they have in the long-term equation.
Alberto Monteiro
