6 ms·

> We simply don't need billions of humans. You make an excellent point, and I'll raise a counterargument. I would claim, simply, that human life is intrinsical

> We simply don't need billions of humans. You make an excellent point, and I'll raise a counterargument. I would claim, simply, that human life is intrinsically a good thing. I believe that my life is worth living, that it is better that I'm alive than if I were dead. I'll presume that everyone who reads this believes the same about their own lives. In that case, the more people alive, the better -- (if all else is equal). That said, the philosopher Derek Parfit anticipated this and raises a counterargument to my argument above, known as the "mere addition paradox". [1] Roughly speaking, it goes as follows. 1. Suppose you have a population of 1,000,000 people, living happy, healthy, productive lives. Let's stipulate that this is a good thing. 2. Now, suppose in addition to this, suppose you have a second population of 1,000,000 people, who lead difficult lives with a lot of hardship, but whose lives are (perhaps barely) worth living. Then, if human life is intrisically good, then it is good that these people also exist. (This is the "mere addition" part.) 3. Given these two populations, equality is a good thing: lower the standard of living of the first million people ever so slightly, and raise the standard of the second group to match the first. This, too, seems to be a good thing. 4. Repeat. Eventually you arrive at a huge population, living lives of misery and squalor which are just slightly better than nothing -- but which one has argued is a better scenario than your original million people. This is the "repugnant conclusion". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox

jonwalch 6y ago
"I'll presume that everyone who reads this believes the same about their own lives." That's an enormous assumption, in my opinion.
scottLobster 6y ago
If nothing else more humans increase our collective potential intelligence to solve problems. It's my my main issue with the anti-natalist movement: If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. We don't need fewer humans, we need smarter/better institutions and more efficient technology. Every life born is one more potential option for a breakthrough.
- js8 6y ago
  > If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. As an anti-natalist (more precise would be anatalist, I am not opposing that other people have kids, I just wish they chose not to), let me address that. The point is not everybody to not have kids, but just enough to stabilize or slightly decrease the population. First, you're assuming that climate denial is genetic and not cultural. Which is a big assumption, and I am in general in favor of nurture argument. (As a side note, by waiting longer to have kids, humans might actually be selecting for kids that are learning more and longer, which favors nurture even more.) However, even if I take that assumption. If I chose not to have kids, that very much means I do not care about biology and what my genetics want. I am making the decision as a person free of the evolutionary pressure (well, somewhat, because I still care about survival of human race). Therefore, I am not sure why I should be bothered by the evolutionary pressure on other individuals. The truth is, it is going to be their battle. I can only lend them a helping hand (and perhaps an example), and do (what I believe is) a morally correct thing. If they mess up and still act wrong, it's not my moral responsibility. It is a similar question as to whether or not vote strategically. If everybody votes strategically, you can get a result that no one wants. Therefore, somebody has to sacrifice and decidedly vote not strategically.
  - justwalt 6y ago
    I highly doubt he thinks climate denial is a genetic presupposition.
    - js8 6y ago
      Well, I didn't want to say that out loud, but the argument is a soft version of "stupid people will win" argument, which I disagree with (and I find it repulsively elitist). That's where the genetics comes in; I should have written biology instead of genetics, though.
  - scottLobster 6y ago
saiya-jin 6y ago
This is perspective from purely human view, ignoring just about everything else that makes reality, which is way more complex. People don't live in vacuum, we destroy our environment on maybe even exponential scale as our numbers grow. Extermination of vast amounts of species and whole ecosystems might mean nothing to you, but sure as hell is something I value very highly. I am not an extremist, I don't claim that earth and universe would be just fine without humans, we can be a worthy addition even if only for selfish purposes. But as usually some middle path is probably the best, especially in long term view, which is very hard to model for human mind.
- impendia 6y ago
  > This is perspective from purely human view, ignoring just about everything else that makes reality, which is way more complex. I agree. (And, in particular, I agree that ecological diversity is very important.) I consider it to be something of a foundational model -- kind of like how in introductory physics you assume that things like air resistance don't exist.
volkk 6y ago
you've lost me at > Given these two populations, equality is a good thing: lower the standard of living of the first million people ever so slightly, and raise the standard of the second group to match the first. I'm trying to understand why you would repeat this step if you've lowered the standard of the first million ever so slightly but have already matched the miserable million to be that of the happy million?
- impendia 6y ago
  Repeat steps 2 and 3: in addition to the now combined group of two million people, assume that you have an additional group of two million people living difficult lives. Now repeat step 3, and so on, until you've doubled the population many times.
  - volkk 6y ago
    Why cant you add a million happy people instead? or both? I understand this is a philosophical thought experiment, but of course if you keep diluting substance X with more and more of substance Y, you'll eventually get mostly substance Y...right? Is it impossible for a society to add 1 happy person for every unhappy person?
    - impendia 6y ago
      > if you keep diluting substance X with more and more of substance Y, you'll eventually get mostly substance Y. Exactly, that's the paradox. Parfit's argument stipulates a series of steps each of which seems to make the world better, but where the end result seems to be worse than what you started with. Hopefully, we can avoid the paradox, and instead grow in such a way that everyone thrives and we mitigate the negative effects on the environment.
nitwit005 6y ago
Pick silly axioms, get silly conclusions. If it were genuinely the case that human life should be maximized, we should lower everyone's standard of living as much as possible (it consumes resources), and then force everyone to have as many children as possible. Of course, that would also maximize human suffering, but apparently human life is intrinsically good regardless of suffering, so not a problem.

jonwalch 6y ago

"I'll presume that everyone who reads this believes the same about their own lives." That's an enormous assumption, in my opinion.

scottLobster 6y ago

If nothing else more humans increase our collective potential intelligence to solve problems. It's my my main issue with the anti-natalist movement: If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. We don't need fewer humans, we need smarter/better institutions and more efficient technology. Every life born is one more potential option for a breakthrough.

js8 6y ago
> If theoretically everyone who believed in climate change agreed that anti-natalism was the solution, by definition within a generation the largest voting block would be the children of climate deniers. Which would actually make climate change much worse. As an anti-natalist (more precise would be anatalist, I am not opposing that other people have kids, I just wish they chose not to), let me address that. The point is not everybody to not have kids, but just enough to stabilize or slightly decrease the population. First, you're assuming that climate denial is genetic and not cultural. Which is a big assumption, and I am in general in favor of nurture argument. (As a side note, by waiting longer to have kids, humans might actually be selecting for kids that are learning more and longer, which favors nurture even more.) However, even if I take that assumption. If I chose not to have kids, that very much means I do not care about biology and what my genetics want. I am making the decision as a person free of the evolutionary pressure (well, somewhat, because I still care about survival of human race). Therefore, I am not sure why I should be bothered by the evolutionary pressure on other individuals. The truth is, it is going to be their battle. I can only lend them a helping hand (and perhaps an example), and do (what I believe is) a morally correct thing. If they mess up and still act wrong, it's not my moral responsibility. It is a similar question as to whether or not vote strategically. If everybody votes strategically, you can get a result that no one wants. Therefore, somebody has to sacrifice and decidedly vote not strategically.
- justwalt 6y ago
  I highly doubt he thinks climate denial is a genetic presupposition.
  - js8 6y ago
    Well, I didn't want to say that out loud, but the argument is a soft version of "stupid people will win" argument, which I disagree with (and I find it repulsively elitist). That's where the genetics comes in; I should have written biology instead of genetics, though.
- scottLobster 6y ago

saiya-jin 6y ago

This is perspective from purely human view, ignoring just about everything else that makes reality, which is way more complex. People don't live in vacuum, we destroy our environment on maybe even exponential scale as our numbers grow. Extermination of vast amounts of species and whole ecosystems might mean nothing to you, but sure as hell is something I value very highly. I am not an extremist, I don't claim that earth and universe would be just fine without humans, we can be a worthy addition even if only for selfish purposes. But as usually some middle path is probably the best, especially in long term view, which is very hard to model for human mind.

impendia 6y ago
> This is perspective from purely human view, ignoring just about everything else that makes reality, which is way more complex. I agree. (And, in particular, I agree that ecological diversity is very important.) I consider it to be something of a foundational model -- kind of like how in introductory physics you assume that things like air resistance don't exist.

volkk 6y ago

you've lost me at > Given these two populations, equality is a good thing: lower the standard of living of the first million people ever so slightly, and raise the standard of the second group to match the first. I'm trying to understand why you would repeat this step if you've lowered the standard of the first million ever so slightly but have already matched the miserable million to be that of the happy million?

impendia 6y ago
Repeat steps 2 and 3: in addition to the now combined group of two million people, assume that you have an additional group of two million people living difficult lives. Now repeat step 3, and so on, until you've doubled the population many times.
- volkk 6y ago
  Why cant you add a million happy people instead? or both? I understand this is a philosophical thought experiment, but of course if you keep diluting substance X with more and more of substance Y, you'll eventually get mostly substance Y...right? Is it impossible for a society to add 1 happy person for every unhappy person?
  - impendia 6y ago
    > if you keep diluting substance X with more and more of substance Y, you'll eventually get mostly substance Y. Exactly, that's the paradox. Parfit's argument stipulates a series of steps each of which seems to make the world better, but where the end result seems to be worse than what you started with. Hopefully, we can avoid the paradox, and instead grow in such a way that everyone thrives and we mitigate the negative effects on the environment.

nitwit005 6y ago

Pick silly axioms, get silly conclusions. If it were genuinely the case that human life should be maximized, we should lower everyone's standard of living as much as possible (it consumes resources), and then force everyone to have as many children as possible. Of course, that would also maximize human suffering, but apparently human life is intrinsically good regardless of suffering, so not a problem.