Non-market valuation relies on individual preference. As humans, we develop preferences knowing we have a finite existence. This limits our ability to value non-market goods because these values are derived from personal benefit during a finite time. Future benefits are discounted for this reason. The benefits from non-market goods endure for much longer than our lifespans. Is there any way to value non-market goods, such as free-flowing rivers, without bias? Are we fit to judge the value of clean and sustainable environments? I would argue that we are not given the current global environmental trajectory. Given the drastic effect of discounting on benefit-cost analysis, there are very serious policy implications. We are talking about life and death decisions here. I think we need to reconsider how we value non-market goods. The undervaluing of these goods will have a very high long term cost to the environment.