Stop biodiversity loss or we could face our own extinction, warns UN
So precisely who is going to pay for all this, and the reduction in growth it’s going to entail?<p>Markets are levered if not overlevered, and maintenance of biodiversity is going to have both spending costs for the govt and resource extraction reductions (arguable), followed by compliance costs for firms.<p>Sure we save ourselves, but face it, our economic system is a rational system which at the end must put a finite price on a human life. Whether by market price discovery or by fiat, we are going to say, “there’s only this much we can spend”.<p>I’m really curious because I pretty much see a dead rock and humans under domes, in the far future.<p>Is there some other plausible outcome?<p>———-<p>Edit: people are correctly targeting the rational part of markets, but here’s the counter.<p>It’s very rational for business firms to lobby against externalities being priced in. It’s rational for ranchers to cut forests for economic gains. And it’s rational for the many many people who are being propelled up out of poverty to want better food, clothing and power.<p>That guy burning crops in India says “shit, sorry for the bad smoke Delhi. But it costs too much to do anything else. Sucks to be you.”<p>That’s why my point on our economy being levered. It’s not in anyone’s rational interest to halt growth. Every % of global gdp growth is millions of people out of poverty.<p>Which is why the question. Are people really incentivized to bell the cat - to actually price in externalities ?