I don’t think this argument is sound. In your EV calculation you’re including the expected deaths over the thousand year period but excluding the expected lives over that same period. There’s an asymmetry in this comparison.
Also, I don’t see how x number deaths of a given species could be worse than the extinction of that species. The way I see it the first choice is save k lives over a thousand years, but the second choice is save k less lives over the same period and loose all future lives after that, forever.
The government should defend against the second case.
I don’t think this argument is sound. In your EV calculation you’re including the expected deaths over the thousand year period but excluding the expected lives over that same period. There’s an asymmetry in this comparison.
Also, I don’t see how x number deaths of a given species could be worse than the extinction of that species. The way I see it the first choice is save k lives over a thousand years, but the second choice is save k less lives over the same period and loose all future lives after that, forever.
The government should defend against the second case.