5 ms·
Sure, but more lives doesn't mean a net increase in happiness. A trillion people who live in the edge of starvation are probably less happy overall than a few
by diputsmonro 4y ago
Sure, but more lives doesn't mean a net increase in happiness. A trillion people who live in the edge of starvation are probably less happy overall than a few billion who are well fed.
I mean, what's the point if being a humanist of you don't care about the human?
- ch4s3 4y agoThere's a whole philosophical discourse about this very topic[1] and I'm not well read enough on the topic to adequately hash out the "repugnant conclusion". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox
- dreadlordbone 4y agoExcept starvation has gone down and quality of life has gone up for the large majority of the human population. Where are you coming from with "a trillion people who live in the edge of starvation"? Some assumed doomsday situation? Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better.
- actually_a_dog 4y ago> Not to be a buzz kill but things have been getting better. Past performance does not guarantee future results. In fact, what this article is saying is that mathematically, our future results are practically guaranteed to be worse than they have been in the past. I don't find your comment at all persuasive because you have not even attempted to grapple with this issue presented in the article.
- airtonix 4y ago
- FeepingCreature 4y agoNo, but past performance does provide evidence, and in the outside view, "no really, this really is the time where we're growing too much and are gonna collapse" has not been true yet. Will it happen eventually? It has to. Will this be the one? Probably not. Are we close to the limits where it'll actually occur? Probably not.
- diputsmonro 4y agoDid... did you read the article you're commenting on?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]