3 ms·

So let's say that you have a magic button that will give every person on Earth now living a 10% improvement in their material living conditions for the rest of

So let's say that you have a magic button that will give every person on Earth now living a 10% improvement in their material living conditions for the rest of their lives -- and will completely destroy the world in 150 years. That gives everyone now living a chance to have children who live full and complete lives. Grand children and great grandchildren maybe not so much. Is it uncomplicatedly the obvious right thing to do to press the button? If not, I think you and Cowen are expressing similar or the same ideas in different ways.

mrob 8y ago
I'd press it only if it wouldn't kill anyone, which would require the unlikely scenario of all humans agreeing to stop breeding. What I reject is the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" is an inherent good. If future humans actually do decide on voluntary extinction, that's their choice and they are doing nothing wrong. If hypothetical future people have rights [edit: I do believe hypothetical future people have rights in the sense of it being wrong to take actions that are reasonably expected to set up a causal chain of event that will kill people who don't yet exist, but I do not believe a future with 100B humans is better than one with 10B humans with the same quality of life], why don't we also ban gay marriage and votes for women etc. because it offends past people?
- aetherson 8y ago
  It most likely won't kill anyone who currently exists, which are the only people you're claiming have rights. My point is that once you start considering the counterfactual world of 150 years from now in terms of, "What harm will it do to the people alive then," there's very little daylight between your views and Cowen's. I don't think that Cowen believes that there's an absolute moral importance to have children, for example.

3 ms·

So let's say that you have a magic button that will give every person on Earth now living a 10% improvement in their material living conditions for the rest of

by aetherson 8y ago

mrob 8y ago
I'd press it only if it wouldn't kill anyone, which would require the unlikely scenario of all humans agreeing to stop breeding. What I reject is the idea that "be fruitful and multiply" is an inherent good. If future humans actually do decide on voluntary extinction, that's their choice and they are doing nothing wrong. If hypothetical future people have rights [edit: I do believe hypothetical future people have rights in the sense of it being wrong to take actions that are reasonably expected to set up a causal chain of event that will kill people who don't yet exist, but I do not believe a future with 100B humans is better than one with 10B humans with the same quality of life], why don't we also ban gay marriage and votes for women etc. because it offends past people?
- aetherson 8y ago
  It most likely won't kill anyone who currently exists, which are the only people you're claiming have rights. My point is that once you start considering the counterfactual world of 150 years from now in terms of, "What harm will it do to the people alive then," there's very little daylight between your views and Cowen's. I don't think that Cowen believes that there's an absolute moral importance to have children, for example.