Well, as I said, it varies from place to place as to its offensiveness. I personally was not offended, but felt that I should at least mention it to raise awareness. As for proof of the word "gringo"'s sinister side, I can offer up the ultimate repositry of human knowlege! (OK, so they reference a dictionary that "classifies the term as offensive slang")
Gaijin is different - so were you a gunjin gaijin geijin? The word just doesn't have any derogatory conotations, similar to hauli (literaly "white guy") in Somoan. It's not the meaning that makesit derogatory, it is the usage. And the usage changes a lot depending on your location. And, on the internet, it pays to be aware of such things, since you don't know the locale of the reader.
Yeah, but "confederation of 25 autonomous countries" is too hard to slip into conversation... is there some short-hand that people use for it? (Or maybe they just always use EU, and leave that part out?)
I'm interested in your views about the startups in particular - this is where I really work, and where my real interests lie. You say that the government is actively promoting startups, but that they do not happen because the Austrian people are too conservative, right? What scares people off? Is it the fear that they will not be able to compete? Is it the fear that they will lose their own assets (because limmited liability law does not protect Europeans as much as it does in the US)? Is it because those likely to create startups can do better doing something else? Or do they leave to other places?
Just interested in your view on this - most of my information comes from government reports, which have an obviously biase.
Uncontrolled capitalism is what we are discussing - but that is an economic system, not a governing philosophy. What I am trying to show is the difference in the application of a governing philosophy (such a socialism or conservatism) in the controls applied to capitalism. (And pointing out that the US isn't doing as well as it should be, IMHO)
fundamental components of the fascist doctrine, which creates the best possible environment for monopolies to establish and grow.
This is actually a very good point, though a little far from anything that was being discussed prior. The basic design of fascism concentrates power and typically uses the corporate structure almost exclusively as a monopoly. This could probably be used to rate a countries "proximity to fascism", if you will. The best indicators I know of for the tendancy towards monopolies (hidden and apparent) are 1) complex regulations concerning industry - typically referred to as safety regulations/controls, and 2) suppression of startups (since monopolies must quash startups eventually people stop making them). This way you can measure the hidden monopolies caused by pyramid corporations, etc.
The EU is difficult to describe (do you call it a country?), but there is no way youare going to convince me that Europe is not a region. A continent is a region...
As for fighting internal monopolies, you may have better information than I do - but then again, you may not. My understanding is that most of Europe has complex laws governing competition between companies (which like all laws almost universally favor the incumbent) - and that startups are comparitively rare. Both of these point to me that there are hidden monopolies - though perhaps I am mistaken.
My understanding is that is many countries (outside of the US, Britain, and a few others) the onwership and control of corporations rests in the hands of a very few individuals through what are called "pyramid corporations." Because of this hidden control, many structures that externally appear competitive are actually monopolistic. Because this is all done behind closed doors, the only way to see it is through secondary effects - such as the two that I mentioned, few startups and complex laws concerning companies.
Not saying the US is perfect, mind you - just that there may be problems in the EU that you are not seeing.
Just to make sure that you are aware, gringo is an offensive term in the US. (I know that it is not offensive everywhere, which is why I mention it).
The reason this is funny in that Europe in general has an extremely protectionistic attitude towards people/companies/etc - one of the basic tenants of socialism, which I think everyone on Earth agrees the US is further fom than Europe (good or bad is irrelevant, it just is). The fact that the US allows monopolies to flourish when the EU does not is very funny, in that the US ideal is being better served by the EU than by the US.
So, I in fact said nothing bad about Europe at all. Grow a thicker skin, please!
I find it hilarious that Europe is the country/entity/region doing the most to fight Monopolies. Only external ones, of course, but still - very funny!
but I still think that not all degrees are a good investment.
This may very well be true - note that the average gain is only $100K for an average college, and as you point out you may not be average, and neither is your college. On the other hand, I just got finished with a college that cost me more than $100K for 2 years, and it paid for itself before I was even finished.
You just need to do what is right for you, in your own situation. But the vast majority will be better off with a college degree, because very soon not having a college degree will be like not having a high school diploma - you will be essentially unemployable.
If you think about it a while you can see the problem - these stars are in orbit, so they should fall at all. Essentially, the stars are being sorted by mass when they should be just going around in circles...
That is totally false! How could you even write something like that?
The value of a college degree:
An average of $20K extra a year for the rest of your working lifetime. (And this ignores the fact that the college premium is steadily increasing!) If you use a 20% discount rate (this reflect that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and more particularly is the discount rate used for startup businesses - the thing most comparable), the present value of the extra income is $20K/0.20=$100K.
The cost of a college degree:
$50K, obviously a smaller number than $100K. It doesn't matter how much you could make investing it, because you could easily invest the additional income as well. If you want to be totally pedantic, you can account for the years spent in college (you don't make more money until after you graduate) - pretend you can make 20% return on investment per year. OK, so now that $50K becomes: $12.5K + $12.5K*1.2 + $12.5K*1.2*1.2 + $12.5K*1.2*1.2*1.2 = $67.1K. Still, obviously a better plan.
And this all assumes a 20% return! If you assume a 10% return, you get a value of $200K at a cost of less then $60K!
For real data on the value of a college degree, please see the US census information.
I believe the typical defense is to claim that this has some other legitimate use. I'm having difficulty seeing what that would be, other than to show a security flaw. I'm not sure how well the "showing security flaw" argument is going to play with a jury...
What you say is totally true - and in fact, I would go further to say that if Xcor made the only rocket on Earth and NASA needed a rocket, the price would be about the same as it is now.
The real point is not to change vendors from Lockheed to Xcor. The point is to 1) change pricing models from "cost plus a percentage" to fixed pricing, and 2) encourage competition, especially smaller companies where innovation is more likely to happen.
The current pricing model for aerospace makes aerospace companies billions of dollars, because the more the rocket costs to operate, the more money the company makes. From that standpoint, it makes no sense for them to do anything except the most expensive type of rocket they think they can get away with. If they lower costs, they also lower their own profit! This will be true until a larger market appears - but creating that larger market is incredibly risky for the existing vendors. This leads us to the second objective...
By encouraging smaller companies, NASA creates some competition to the big aerospace companies just to keep them honest (though there is already some competition there anyway). But the huge win for Humanity is that the small company cannot survive unless they find a way to grow the market. Since there are already large, entrenched competitors in the existing market, a startup's only hope is to create a new market where the big players do not operate - such as space tourism. Once they develope that market, space access costs will drop dramatically.
It is interesting to note that for all of the commotion about who is doing what, NASA is actually following this plan pretty well for a government institution...
Essentially yes. Money is actually a good way to make decisions if you want the most stuff possible done (you can argue that this is not ideal, of course). Basically, the people that get things done are rewarded with the ability to get more stuff done.
Of course most of the world has huge inefficiencies in the distribution of money - either they hand it out to everyone, giving the same power to people regardless of their ability to use it; or they allow consolidation of power to just a few people that are chosen by bloodline or politics, rather than ability to create stuff. That stuff gives money a bad name - but money in and of itself still works pretty well.
Fortunately, instead of spreading votes around equaly to all countries (I mean really, who would want to bend to North Korea's opinion on anything!) we give votes based on previous sharing of resources or accomplishments. The system deciding the voting structure is incredibly complex, but relatively fair - we call it money...
BTW, on point #15 - the reason there is so much anti-corporate sentiment expressed is because most non-US (and non-British, and a few other countries) corporations really are evil like they say. I recently listened to a presentation on the pitfalls you can encounter in joint ventures in other countries, and in many countries the corporate structure really is used to keep everyone down and keep the wealthy in power.
The easiest measure of corporate structure abuse is the ratio of startups to mature companies - because mature companies represent the opressors, and startups represent the opressees.
Look, I realize that your position is a defensible and reasonable one - I am merely showing you that it is not the only defensible and reasonable one.
I study game theory - I really do know what I am talking about. You believe that morals transcend game theory, and that lying is a better for the individual by game theory. My point is that it is not! To put this in Game Theory terms, think of this as the prisoner's dilemma - lying helps you only if everyone else doesn't lie (or if you do it first, if you like). But to you personally, you have a choice - lie or don't lie. If you lie, then you know that everyone else will start lying in a downward spiral - which will be bad for you. If you don't lie, then as long as noone else lies you are far better off. The trick is that in a society, you can beat up the guy that lies first - getting you out of the prisoner's dillemma, and matching the game theory choice with the moral choice.
Causality (or the direction of it) in the relationship of game theory to morallity is impossible to prove, of course. So you have your ideas and I have mine.
I agree with you to a point, but I think that trying to enforce fairness with a machine is a bad idea. Think about this - the current system works (in as much as it does work) because people on both sides have the same access, and can check to be sure the other person didn't cheat. Once you introduce technology, the playing field is no longer level - one side (the more tech-savy side) may be able to cheat without the other side even knowing.
So I guess if we are going to use machines in this, I would prefer that the machines be extremely simple - such that the very old people sitting at the election booth monitoring the election can actually resolve any problems that come up. Short of that, we need to realize that it is not possible to really secure a system against a dedicated opponent. This is a human problem, and it needs a human solution.
"Good enough" security systems abound; for example credit cards
I'll let you in on an even better kept secret - banks make money from fraud! When you are defrauded on the internet, your credit rating takes a hit, the merchant loses the value of the transaction plus $20, and the bank shows $20 revenue, probably $5 profit. Banks are actually incentivized to increase fraud!
So, why do we not have secureid-like credit cards again?
What is funny is that no one has commented on the real story here - Diebold sent a copy of the source code for a security audit, as requested. Maryland's security team then leaked the code to external people and used the incident to claim that Diebold's security is awful...
The real lesson here is the lengths some politicians will go to so that they appear "right".
(OK, and Diebold also has security issues - but that is a side issue, everyone has security issues. These are the guys making ATMs, for goodness sake. A voting machine that is as secure as an ATM is probably good enough. You can't stop human fraud via a machine - humans win every time.)
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations. For example, game theory can tell you why human morality (in general) looks down on lying. If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
Of course, most people do not go through that line of reasoning - but there exists a line of reasoning like that for all of human morality.
I do actually enjoy them, as I learn interesting new things that way. I would disagree with your concept of morality - I believe that morality is merely an advance form of game theory. You probably believe it is the other way around, that game theory is an attempt to model morality.
Anyway, one advantage of looking at it that way is the ability to make balanced decisions about difficult options. For example, it is simple that we should not destroy Venus just because it obstructs our view of Mecury - but what if we used it's entire atmosphere as propellant to escape the sun's red giant phase? What if there is only a 50% chance of success? This would be a difficult choice to make if you rely on a moral system, such as "pristine planets have value." That just begs the question, how much value? How do you value it?
Personally, I think my definition of value is the only internally consistant one - but by all means, prove me wrong.
Since I have seen this a few times, let me clarify that a "large" calorie (the ones used in food labeling) is the amount of energy needed to raise a kilogram of water 1 degree C. So, assuming you drink a liter of water at 0 C, you burn 37 calories as your body raises the temperature of the water up to body temperature.
So, roughly speaking, for every 100 liters of ice water you drink you lose a pound of body fat...
Even funnier - have you ever thought about what those activists are trying to do to all the plants that have now evolved to live in a higher caron-dioxide atmosphere? They are trying to wipe out an entire ecosystem, I tells ya!
Remeber those moths that evolved grey, then black, then white to match the pollution colors?
I agree with you, BTW - old growth forest have a high value, as does untouched wilderness. It just isn't valueable if there are no humans, and it is not priceless. Just expensive.
This is just nihilism. Nothing has any value, so let's just lay down and die.
Not so! In my example, Iron has value because it is useable by humans, is attainable by humans, but is difficult to attain. Oxygen has less value to humans, because while it is essential for life it is easy to obtain. Or you could make other arguments that reverse the orders - but the key is that if there isn't a human involved, there is no value.
If there are millions of Earths, some should have intelligence, so, (vide Drake's Paradox) where the hell are they?
My current working theory is that any race advanced enough to create spacecraft has negative population growth, and they die out.
But anyway, the value of Earth is really uneffected by any other Earths - unless we find a way to reach them. (Or, if you think we will find a way to reach them, I suppose some kind of futures-market-like value could be assigned) The Earth is valuable because it is our home. If it ceases to be our home, it has no value.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, as I said, it varies from place to place as to its offensiveness. I personally was not offended, but felt that I should at least mention it to raise awareness. As for proof of the word "gringo"'s sinister side, I can offer up the ultimate repositry of human knowlege! (OK, so they reference a dictionary that "classifies the term as offensive slang")
Gaijin is different - so were you a gunjin gaijin geijin? The word just doesn't have any derogatory conotations, similar to hauli (literaly "white guy") in Somoan. It's not the meaning that makesit derogatory, it is the usage. And the usage changes a lot depending on your location. And, on the internet, it pays to be aware of such things, since you don't know the locale of the reader.
Yeah, but "confederation of 25 autonomous countries" is too hard to slip into conversation... is there some short-hand that people use for it? (Or maybe they just always use EU, and leave that part out?)
I'm interested in your views about the startups in particular - this is where I really work, and where my real interests lie. You say that the government is actively promoting startups, but that they do not happen because the Austrian people are too conservative, right? What scares people off? Is it the fear that they will not be able to compete? Is it the fear that they will lose their own assets (because limmited liability law does not protect Europeans as much as it does in the US)? Is it because those likely to create startups can do better doing something else? Or do they leave to other places?
Just interested in your view on this - most of my information comes from government reports, which have an obviously biase.
Uncontrolled capitalism is what we are discussing - but that is an economic system, not a governing philosophy. What I am trying to show is the difference in the application of a governing philosophy (such a socialism or conservatism) in the controls applied to capitalism. (And pointing out that the US isn't doing as well as it should be, IMHO)
fundamental components of the fascist doctrine, which creates the best possible environment for monopolies to establish and grow.
This is actually a very good point, though a little far from anything that was being discussed prior. The basic design of fascism concentrates power and typically uses the corporate structure almost exclusively as a monopoly. This could probably be used to rate a countries "proximity to fascism", if you will. The best indicators I know of for the tendancy towards monopolies (hidden and apparent) are 1) complex regulations concerning industry - typically referred to as safety regulations/controls, and 2) suppression of startups (since monopolies must quash startups eventually people stop making them). This way you can measure the hidden monopolies caused by pyramid corporations, etc.
More information on startup friendly countries.
More information on Government regulation. (Not as good as the first one, unfortunately)
The EU is difficult to describe (do you call it a country?), but there is no way youare going to convince me that Europe is not a region. A continent is a region...
As for fighting internal monopolies, you may have better information than I do - but then again, you may not. My understanding is that most of Europe has complex laws governing competition between companies (which like all laws almost universally favor the incumbent) - and that startups are comparitively rare. Both of these point to me that there are hidden monopolies - though perhaps I am mistaken.
My understanding is that is many countries (outside of the US, Britain, and a few others) the onwership and control of corporations rests in the hands of a very few individuals through what are called "pyramid corporations." Because of this hidden control, many structures that externally appear competitive are actually monopolistic. Because this is all done behind closed doors, the only way to see it is through secondary effects - such as the two that I mentioned, few startups and complex laws concerning companies.
Not saying the US is perfect, mind you - just that there may be problems in the EU that you are not seeing.
Do you have more data on that you could share?
Just to make sure that you are aware, gringo is an offensive term in the US. (I know that it is not offensive everywhere, which is why I mention it).
The reason this is funny in that Europe in general has an extremely protectionistic attitude towards people/companies/etc - one of the basic tenants of socialism, which I think everyone on Earth agrees the US is further fom than Europe (good or bad is irrelevant, it just is). The fact that the US allows monopolies to flourish when the EU does not is very funny, in that the US ideal is being better served by the EU than by the US.
So, I in fact said nothing bad about Europe at all. Grow a thicker skin, please!
I find it hilarious that Europe is the country/entity/region doing the most to fight Monopolies. Only external ones, of course, but still - very funny!
but I still think that not all degrees are a good investment.
This may very well be true - note that the average gain is only $100K for an average college, and as you point out you may not be average, and neither is your college. On the other hand, I just got finished with a college that cost me more than $100K for 2 years, and it paid for itself before I was even finished.
You just need to do what is right for you, in your own situation. But the vast majority will be better off with a college degree, because very soon not having a college degree will be like not having a high school diploma - you will be essentially unemployable.
If you think about it a while you can see the problem - these stars are in orbit, so they should fall at all. Essentially, the stars are being sorted by mass when they should be just going around in circles...
That is totally false! How could you even write something like that?
The value of a college degree:
An average of $20K extra a year for the rest of your working lifetime. (And this ignores the fact that the college premium is steadily increasing!) If you use a 20% discount rate (this reflect that a bird in the hand is worth 2 in the bush, and more particularly is the discount rate used for startup businesses - the thing most comparable), the present value of the extra income is $20K/0.20=$100K.
The cost of a college degree:
$50K, obviously a smaller number than $100K. It doesn't matter how much you could make investing it, because you could easily invest the additional income as well. If you want to be totally pedantic, you can account for the years spent in college (you don't make more money until after you graduate) - pretend you can make 20% return on investment per year. OK, so now that $50K becomes: $12.5K + $12.5K*1.2 + $12.5K*1.2*1.2 + $12.5K*1.2*1.2*1.2 = $67.1K. Still, obviously a better plan.
And this all assumes a 20% return! If you assume a 10% return, you get a value of $200K at a cost of less then $60K!
For real data on the value of a college degree, please see the US census information.
I believe the typical defense is to claim that this has some other legitimate use. I'm having difficulty seeing what that would be, other than to show a security flaw. I'm not sure how well the "showing security flaw" argument is going to play with a jury...
What you say is totally true - and in fact, I would go further to say that if Xcor made the only rocket on Earth and NASA needed a rocket, the price would be about the same as it is now.
The real point is not to change vendors from Lockheed to Xcor. The point is to 1) change pricing models from "cost plus a percentage" to fixed pricing, and 2) encourage competition, especially smaller companies where innovation is more likely to happen.
The current pricing model for aerospace makes aerospace companies billions of dollars, because the more the rocket costs to operate, the more money the company makes. From that standpoint, it makes no sense for them to do anything except the most expensive type of rocket they think they can get away with. If they lower costs, they also lower their own profit! This will be true until a larger market appears - but creating that larger market is incredibly risky for the existing vendors. This leads us to the second objective...
By encouraging smaller companies, NASA creates some competition to the big aerospace companies just to keep them honest (though there is already some competition there anyway). But the huge win for Humanity is that the small company cannot survive unless they find a way to grow the market. Since there are already large, entrenched competitors in the existing market, a startup's only hope is to create a new market where the big players do not operate - such as space tourism. Once they develope that market, space access costs will drop dramatically.
It is interesting to note that for all of the commotion about who is doing what, NASA is actually following this plan pretty well for a government institution...
Essentially yes. Money is actually a good way to make decisions if you want the most stuff possible done (you can argue that this is not ideal, of course). Basically, the people that get things done are rewarded with the ability to get more stuff done.
Of course most of the world has huge inefficiencies in the distribution of money - either they hand it out to everyone, giving the same power to people regardless of their ability to use it; or they allow consolidation of power to just a few people that are chosen by bloodline or politics, rather than ability to create stuff. That stuff gives money a bad name - but money in and of itself still works pretty well.
Fortunately, instead of spreading votes around equaly to all countries (I mean really, who would want to bend to North Korea's opinion on anything!) we give votes based on previous sharing of resources or accomplishments. The system deciding the voting structure is incredibly complex, but relatively fair - we call it money...
BTW, on point #15 - the reason there is so much anti-corporate sentiment expressed is because most non-US (and non-British, and a few other countries) corporations really are evil like they say. I recently listened to a presentation on the pitfalls you can encounter in joint ventures in other countries, and in many countries the corporate structure really is used to keep everyone down and keep the wealthy in power.
The easiest measure of corporate structure abuse is the ratio of startups to mature companies - because mature companies represent the opressors, and startups represent the opressees.
Look, I realize that your position is a defensible and reasonable one - I am merely showing you that it is not the only defensible and reasonable one.
I study game theory - I really do know what I am talking about. You believe that morals transcend game theory, and that lying is a better for the individual by game theory. My point is that it is not! To put this in Game Theory terms, think of this as the prisoner's dilemma - lying helps you only if everyone else doesn't lie (or if you do it first, if you like). But to you personally, you have a choice - lie or don't lie. If you lie, then you know that everyone else will start lying in a downward spiral - which will be bad for you. If you don't lie, then as long as noone else lies you are far better off. The trick is that in a society, you can beat up the guy that lies first - getting you out of the prisoner's dillemma, and matching the game theory choice with the moral choice.
Causality (or the direction of it) in the relationship of game theory to morallity is impossible to prove, of course. So you have your ideas and I have mine.
I agree with you to a point, but I think that trying to enforce fairness with a machine is a bad idea. Think about this - the current system works (in as much as it does work) because people on both sides have the same access, and can check to be sure the other person didn't cheat. Once you introduce technology, the playing field is no longer level - one side (the more tech-savy side) may be able to cheat without the other side even knowing.
So I guess if we are going to use machines in this, I would prefer that the machines be extremely simple - such that the very old people sitting at the election booth monitoring the election can actually resolve any problems that come up. Short of that, we need to realize that it is not possible to really secure a system against a dedicated opponent. This is a human problem, and it needs a human solution.
"Good enough" security systems abound; for example credit cards
I'll let you in on an even better kept secret - banks make money from fraud! When you are defrauded on the internet, your credit rating takes a hit, the merchant loses the value of the transaction plus $20, and the bank shows $20 revenue, probably $5 profit. Banks are actually incentivized to increase fraud!
So, why do we not have secureid-like credit cards again?
At $30000/gm, even small amounts can have devastating effects on your bank account...
What is funny is that no one has commented on the real story here - Diebold sent a copy of the source code for a security audit, as requested. Maryland's security team then leaked the code to external people and used the incident to claim that Diebold's security is awful...
The real lesson here is the lengths some politicians will go to so that they appear "right".
(OK, and Diebold also has security issues - but that is a side issue, everyone has security issues. These are the guys making ATMs, for goodness sake. A voting machine that is as secure as an ATM is probably good enough. You can't stop human fraud via a machine - humans win every time.)
Game theory is the science of calculating optimum response (optimizing self-interest) in difficult situations. For example, game theory can tell you why human morality (in general) looks down on lying. If you lie, you can achieve a short term gain while everyone else loses - but, longer term, your lie will lead to people not trusting you (either you in particular or more generalized mistrust), which will lower society's output (because people cannot work well together), which will mean that you are worse off than before. So most people do not lie.
Of course, most people do not go through that line of reasoning - but there exists a line of reasoning like that for all of human morality.
I do actually enjoy them, as I learn interesting new things that way. I would disagree with your concept of morality - I believe that morality is merely an advance form of game theory. You probably believe it is the other way around, that game theory is an attempt to model morality.
Anyway, one advantage of looking at it that way is the ability to make balanced decisions about difficult options. For example, it is simple that we should not destroy Venus just because it obstructs our view of Mecury - but what if we used it's entire atmosphere as propellant to escape the sun's red giant phase? What if there is only a 50% chance of success? This would be a difficult choice to make if you rely on a moral system, such as "pristine planets have value." That just begs the question, how much value? How do you value it?
Personally, I think my definition of value is the only internally consistant one - but by all means, prove me wrong.
Well, I would agree with you - but that is not what this article was about.
Since I have seen this a few times, let me clarify that a "large" calorie (the ones used in food labeling) is the amount of energy needed to raise a kilogram of water 1 degree C. So, assuming you drink a liter of water at 0 C, you burn 37 calories as your body raises the temperature of the water up to body temperature.
So, roughly speaking, for every 100 liters of ice water you drink you lose a pound of body fat...
Even funnier - have you ever thought about what those activists are trying to do to all the plants that have now evolved to live in a higher caron-dioxide atmosphere? They are trying to wipe out an entire ecosystem, I tells ya!
Remeber those moths that evolved grey, then black, then white to match the pollution colors?
Why do people resist change so much?
Well, as long as we agree that were both weird...
I agree with you, BTW - old growth forest have a high value, as does untouched wilderness. It just isn't valueable if there are no humans, and it is not priceless. Just expensive.
This is just nihilism. Nothing has any value, so let's just lay down and die.
Not so! In my example, Iron has value because it is useable by humans, is attainable by humans, but is difficult to attain. Oxygen has less value to humans, because while it is essential for life it is easy to obtain. Or you could make other arguments that reverse the orders - but the key is that if there isn't a human involved, there is no value.
If there are millions of Earths, some should have intelligence, so, (vide Drake's Paradox) where the hell are they?
My current working theory is that any race advanced enough to create spacecraft has negative population growth, and they die out.
But anyway, the value of Earth is really uneffected by any other Earths - unless we find a way to reach them. (Or, if you think we will find a way to reach them, I suppose some kind of futures-market-like value could be assigned) The Earth is valuable because it is our home. If it ceases to be our home, it has no value.