5 ms·

To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. That's a tough sell, but that sounds rea

To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. That's a tough sell, but that sounds reasonable (well, I can talk, I don't have children). This is basically the same reasoning Yudkowsky presented with his dust speck vs torture argument argument: a sufficiently widespread benefit, however small, will outweigh a sufficiently improbable horrible event.

souprock 7y ago
Well, I have a dozen kids, and I agree. Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. My wife's uncle had the postcard family, one boy and one girl in a cute little city house with a picket fence. The daughter died, and the father completely fell apart. He lost 100% of his daughters. It is too late for him to create a replacement. Most families today are tiny. I think this has affected our perception of loss. The risk of 100% loss has become so great that people can't allow the risk of traditional play.
- justinator 7y ago
  Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. I think I just read the most insane sentence I'll read all year.
  - bad_good_guy 7y ago
    How is it insane when this is the historic reason behind large families?
    - justinator 7y ago
      I'm not touching, "but it's historical!", because that's a problematic idea in of itself. Lots of things are, "historical", but don't make sense in the modern world. Say you had two kids, and you lost both. One way to think of it is your lost all the children you ever had. Fine. Say you had a DOZEN kids, and you lost six of them. Same thinking as above, you've lost half the children you ever had. Ok, but you still lost six kids!. Six kids have to go through life knowing they have lost six siblings. Having that somehow be better is pure insanity. Or at the very least the utmost self-centered thing I've ever heard of - you're hoping that the loss off 6 out of 12 kids is somewhat less of an impact on yourself when compared to losing two kids? These are human beings, not cupcakes you're bringing to a picnic. If you brought two cupcakes, and hoping to have one yourself, but both were eaten before you could have your own cupcake, that stinks - but you're just out of a cupcake. Then yeah: bring a dozen cupcakes to share, and have yourself your own cupcake.
  - baud147258 7y ago
    If I remember right, reducing child mortality actually decrease the number of children per family, so it's not that strange. Of course it's bluntly said and reductionist, but I think it has a basis in fact.
- ctack 7y ago
  Does your stance on redundancy of loved ones also extend to the number of spouses you have?
- ctack 7y ago
  You might still want to learn how to deal with grief and loss though. If you had 12 kids to avoid the possibility of losing all of your kids or all of one gender of your kids, it might still happen anyway. What if you lose your favorite one? What if you still lose all of them? I don’t wish any of that on you or anyone, but I just have to say that breeding for redundancy to avoid the pain of loss strikes me as being, and this is putting it mildly, a tad immature.
- stevesimmons 7y ago
  You've increased your likelihood of experiencing tragic loss 12-fold!
zbentley 7y ago
I think that's kind of missing GP's point that, while > the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. might be totally true, it's borderline-impossible to convince concerned (or worse, bereaved) parents of this in many cases, for human, not utilitarian, reasons.
- wallace_f 7y ago
  But is this really caused by grieving parents and not blood-sucking lawyers and idiotic bureaucrats? I'm in Japan and there's a lot of dangerous playground equipment, hikes, stairwells, rooftop decks, onsens, alcohol that can be bought from vending machines, etc... And yet without all those 'experts'and authorities protecting society from these dangers, here it feels safety is many, many tiers better what we have in America.
- Mirioron 7y ago
  But bereaved parents are only a small portion of the people at the time. They alone can't make changes. The rest of society has to agree to them.
Noos 7y ago
No, it isn't. We can all survive with a little less happiness. If our playgrounds are a little more boring, we can all deal. (though if anything they are a lot nicer than the ones I grew up with) Happiness is a good that can come from many sources, and while it's nice to have, if it is reduced, we can usually adapt to it by finding a new source. Happiness shouldn't be a reason to trade lives.
- joesb 7y ago
  That reminds me of the villian robot in I, Robot movie. They don't want to harm human, they just want to keep them in the house, so that there is less crime, and less people die. It may take away freedom. But freedom should not be a reason to trade lives. Some may say the playground is about happiness, some may say it's about the freedom to experience.
Firadeoclus 7y ago
> To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. I don't think that's an accurate reframing. The opportunity cost isn't just happiness (by making playgrounds boring, presumably) but also safety, and therefore lives, in other areas. When you hit diminishing returns trying to make playgrounds 100% safe, spending the same resources on e.g. road design will save more lives.

souprock 7y ago

Well, I have a dozen kids, and I agree. Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. My wife's uncle had the postcard family, one boy and one girl in a cute little city house with a picket fence. The daughter died, and the father completely fell apart. He lost 100% of his daughters. It is too late for him to create a replacement. Most families today are tiny. I think this has affected our perception of loss. The risk of 100% loss has become so great that people can't allow the risk of traditional play.

justinator 7y ago
Of course, part of the reason for so many kids is to minimize the percentage of my family that would be lost if one did die. I think I just read the most insane sentence I'll read all year.
- bad_good_guy 7y ago
  How is it insane when this is the historic reason behind large families?
  - justinator 7y ago
    I'm not touching, "but it's historical!", because that's a problematic idea in of itself. Lots of things are, "historical", but don't make sense in the modern world. Say you had two kids, and you lost both. One way to think of it is your lost all the children you ever had. Fine. Say you had a DOZEN kids, and you lost six of them. Same thinking as above, you've lost half the children you ever had. Ok, but you still lost six kids!. Six kids have to go through life knowing they have lost six siblings. Having that somehow be better is pure insanity. Or at the very least the utmost self-centered thing I've ever heard of - you're hoping that the loss off 6 out of 12 kids is somewhat less of an impact on yourself when compared to losing two kids? These are human beings, not cupcakes you're bringing to a picnic. If you brought two cupcakes, and hoping to have one yourself, but both were eaten before you could have your own cupcake, that stinks - but you're just out of a cupcake. Then yeah: bring a dozen cupcakes to share, and have yourself your own cupcake.
- baud147258 7y ago
  If I remember right, reducing child mortality actually decrease the number of children per family, so it's not that strange. Of course it's bluntly said and reductionist, but I think it has a basis in fact.
ctack 7y ago
Does your stance on redundancy of loved ones also extend to the number of spouses you have?
ctack 7y ago
You might still want to learn how to deal with grief and loss though. If you had 12 kids to avoid the possibility of losing all of your kids or all of one gender of your kids, it might still happen anyway. What if you lose your favorite one? What if you still lose all of them? I don’t wish any of that on you or anyone, but I just have to say that breeding for redundancy to avoid the pain of loss strikes me as being, and this is putting it mildly, a tad immature.
stevesimmons 7y ago
You've increased your likelihood of experiencing tragic loss 12-fold!

zbentley 7y ago

I think that's kind of missing GP's point that, while > the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. might be totally true, it's borderline-impossible to convince concerned (or worse, bereaved) parents of this in many cases, for human, not utilitarian, reasons.

wallace_f 7y ago
But is this really caused by grieving parents and not blood-sucking lawyers and idiotic bureaucrats? I'm in Japan and there's a lot of dangerous playground equipment, hikes, stairwells, rooftop decks, onsens, alcohol that can be bought from vending machines, etc... And yet without all those 'experts'and authorities protecting society from these dangers, here it feels safety is many, many tiers better what we have in America.
Mirioron 7y ago
But bereaved parents are only a small portion of the people at the time. They alone can't make changes. The rest of society has to agree to them.

Noos 7y ago

No, it isn't. We can all survive with a little less happiness. If our playgrounds are a little more boring, we can all deal. (though if anything they are a lot nicer than the ones I grew up with) Happiness is a good that can come from many sources, and while it's nice to have, if it is reduced, we can usually adapt to it by finding a new source. Happiness shouldn't be a reason to trade lives.

joesb 7y ago
That reminds me of the villian robot in I, Robot movie. They don't want to harm human, they just want to keep them in the house, so that there is less crime, and less people die. It may take away freedom. But freedom should not be a reason to trade lives. Some may say the playground is about happiness, some may say it's about the freedom to experience.

Firadeoclus 7y ago

> To put it bluntly, the increased happiness of millions of children is worth a couple children's health, or even lives. I don't think that's an accurate reframing. The opportunity cost isn't just happiness (by making playgrounds boring, presumably) but also safety, and therefore lives, in other areas. When you hit diminishing returns trying to make playgrounds 100% safe, spending the same resources on e.g. road design will save more lives.