9 ms·

To me the problem is only injustice and distribution of resources, not how much or little we have in absolute terms. And if we must make up a measure as to who

by mellow2020 6y ago

To me the problem is only injustice and distribution of resources, not how much or little we have in absolute terms. And if we must make up a measure as to who gets to have kids, maybe make it empathy, not wealth, which is a much worse indicator of the quality of a person than even physical strength would be.

searchableguy 6y ago
How does someone measure empathy at institutional level? Every other metric I can think of will be hard to convince and implement. It can also be pretty subjective.
- mellow2020 6y ago
  I didn't say it's easily doable, I say while making up arbitrary factors, at least attempt to make it a good one. If you pick poverty as the criterion, convincing anyone isn't even a question, the coercion is a given, so there's no need to suddenly shift the goal posts for empathy, of all things. > It can also be pretty subjective. The comment I replied to literally mentions "everything wrong in the world" in the opening, it couldn't get more vague and subjective than that, but empathy is the problem? Overpopulation is subjective, misdistribution is subjective, quality of education is subjective (you may say knowing things and being able to use them well is "better", but that's subjective, too), even human extinction being a problem is subjective. As anything else relating to human ambitions and what we consider a good life.
  - searchableguy 6y ago
    Some things are more subjective than others. Reasonable people will agree that poverty is bad. Depending on the axioms you have defined for yourself. There is statistical evidence for poverty causing health problems or people to die early on average. Infant mortality rates among poor households or kids with malnutrition. You could always think of unexpected death as unreasonable or objectively bad. By that line of thinking, you can conclude that poverty must be objectively bad. Anything that can result in unexpected death afterwards is objectively bad. No matter what you end up with, you still need a fundamental axiom or moral position, I believe. Like why is 3 greater than 2? Because I attach a greater position value to 3 but what makes this objective really? Most people agreeing with it? Can most people agree that this world needs less unexpected deaths? Yes. Does stopping the number of people born reduce that? Yes. Should you stop the demography with highest infant/kid mortality rate first? Yes. What's so subjective about it now? Unless you believe that unexpected deaths are a great thing, in that case I think you are fucked up.

searchableguy 6y ago

How does someone measure empathy at institutional level? Every other metric I can think of will be hard to convince and implement. It can also be pretty subjective.

mellow2020 6y ago
I didn't say it's easily doable, I say while making up arbitrary factors, at least attempt to make it a good one. If you pick poverty as the criterion, convincing anyone isn't even a question, the coercion is a given, so there's no need to suddenly shift the goal posts for empathy, of all things. > It can also be pretty subjective. The comment I replied to literally mentions "everything wrong in the world" in the opening, it couldn't get more vague and subjective than that, but empathy is the problem? Overpopulation is subjective, misdistribution is subjective, quality of education is subjective (you may say knowing things and being able to use them well is "better", but that's subjective, too), even human extinction being a problem is subjective. As anything else relating to human ambitions and what we consider a good life.
- searchableguy 6y ago
  Some things are more subjective than others. Reasonable people will agree that poverty is bad. Depending on the axioms you have defined for yourself. There is statistical evidence for poverty causing health problems or people to die early on average. Infant mortality rates among poor households or kids with malnutrition. You could always think of unexpected death as unreasonable or objectively bad. By that line of thinking, you can conclude that poverty must be objectively bad. Anything that can result in unexpected death afterwards is objectively bad. No matter what you end up with, you still need a fundamental axiom or moral position, I believe. Like why is 3 greater than 2? Because I attach a greater position value to 3 but what makes this objective really? Most people agreeing with it? Can most people agree that this world needs less unexpected deaths? Yes. Does stopping the number of people born reduce that? Yes. Should you stop the demography with highest infant/kid mortality rate first? Yes. What's so subjective about it now? Unless you believe that unexpected deaths are a great thing, in that case I think you are fucked up.