So, -typically- (across the set of environment-risking things), the -worst case- (within one of those things) is not beyond the reach of insurance.
Right -- I think I've been making it pretty clear, though, that I was referring to high-risk industrial activities, not to average case ones.
Generally speaking, the moment you refuse to quantify the damage, it's no longer in the reach of reasonable debate. "This thing is infinitely valuable" makes for nice platitudes, but not sound policy.
I disagree; I find that qualitative reasoning can often be quite useful. Especially to avoid the pitfalls of purely quantitative reasons, which can often lead one to either-or arguments (such as you are invoking above), reduction to extremes, or other cul-de-sacs of the mind.
In particular, you'll note that I've never used the phrase "infinitely valuable" (or "infinitely bad"), and have in fact specifically eschewed it, despite your repeated attempt to assist the contrary.
All I'm referring to, basically, is the fact that some forms of damage are basically irreparable -- which is quite different from saying "the thing is infinitely valuable" (or that wrecking it is "infinitely bad"). In other words, it's a distinction of kind, rather than simply degree. And all I'm saying, policy-wise, is that industrial activities which carry a high enough risk of large-scale, irreparable environmental damage are of a different kind, such that it is no longer reasonable to believe that insurance requirements (or any threat of civil penalties against the corporate entities engaging in them) will provide adequate protection; instead they should banned outright.
Like, you know -- drunk driving.
I don't see this as an unreasonable position, not does is it (as you would seem to suggest) undermine our axiom systems to such a degree that everything becomes unknowable and all debate becomes pointless. Rather, it's just common sense, qualitative reasoning -- that's all.
Right -- I think I've been making it pretty clear, though, that I was referring to high-risk industrial activities, not to average case ones.
Generally speaking, the moment you refuse to quantify the damage, it's no longer in the reach of reasonable debate. "This thing is infinitely valuable" makes for nice platitudes, but not sound policy.
I disagree; I find that qualitative reasoning can often be quite useful. Especially to avoid the pitfalls of purely quantitative reasons, which can often lead one to either-or arguments (such as you are invoking above), reduction to extremes, or other cul-de-sacs of the mind.
In particular, you'll note that I've never used the phrase "infinitely valuable" (or "infinitely bad"), and have in fact specifically eschewed it, despite your repeated attempt to assist the contrary.
All I'm referring to, basically, is the fact that some forms of damage are basically irreparable -- which is quite different from saying "the thing is infinitely valuable" (or that wrecking it is "infinitely bad"). In other words, it's a distinction of kind, rather than simply degree. And all I'm saying, policy-wise, is that industrial activities which carry a high enough risk of large-scale, irreparable environmental damage are of a different kind, such that it is no longer reasonable to believe that insurance requirements (or any threat of civil penalties against the corporate entities engaging in them) will provide adequate protection; instead they should banned outright.
Like, you know -- drunk driving.
I don't see this as an unreasonable position, not does is it (as you would seem to suggest) undermine our axiom systems to such a degree that everything becomes unknowable and all debate becomes pointless. Rather, it's just common sense, qualitative reasoning -- that's all.