5 ms·

>Between WW1 and WW2 something like 100 million people died. Haber is not a figure that should appear on this list. OK, so instead of 1-2 billion, he's at 0.9

>Between WW1 and WW2 something like 100 million people died. Haber is not a figure that should appear on this list. OK, so instead of 1-2 billion, he's at 0.9 to 1.9 billion lives saved/enabled? You make a convincing argument for why he maybe wasn't a good person, but net, the Haber-Bosch process has enabled so many more people to live than it has enabled people to die. That's not a moral judgement, just pure numbers thing.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
I think your "lives saved/enabled" comment brings up a very important question, though. Is a life enabled worth the same thing as a life saved? More to the point in this equation, I think the murder of any individual is much worse than having technology limitations that prevent some people from being born in the first place. Without the Haber-Bosch process, the world population would be much, much smaller, that's undeniable. But the primary reason it would be smaller is so many people would have never been born - is that really a problem though?
- COGlory 3y ago
  I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born. So from an objectivist, population average view, perhaps not equivalent to a life saved. But to any individual, it seems to equate to their life being saved.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    > I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born. Philosophically, this feels like such a weird statement to me. I'm quite sure I'd be 100% fine with never having been born, because there'd be nobody to care about the lack of me in the first place. There are of course an infinite number of people who were never born due to some small butterfly-effect missed connections.
- swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
  If a family has ten kids, is that family worth more than 3x a family with just one child? That's what gets to me about utilitarian philosophy. By adding more people, something humans are good at, you're increasing the number of people that deserve moral consideration. The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing
  - hulitu 3y ago
    > The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing "And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space 'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth" "Can we take your liver now" ?
  - newyankee 3y ago
    Also the misplaced notion that all religious ideologies are same. Religions followed strictly promote procreation but they do not provide a solution for hunger, using limited resources of the world etc. I can also argue as an Indian that authoritarian Chinese growth over last 4 decades did more to remove people from poverty and increase quality of life (in the process also saving many lives, whatever the cost - 15k Tiananmen deaths etc.) than democratic India where till recently nothing seemed to get done due to corruption, mismanagement and people fighting over limited resources.

hn_throwaway_99 3y ago

I think your "lives saved/enabled" comment brings up a very important question, though. Is a life enabled worth the same thing as a life saved? More to the point in this equation, I think the murder of any individual is much worse than having technology limitations that prevent some people from being born in the first place. Without the Haber-Bosch process, the world population would be much, much smaller, that's undeniable. But the primary reason it would be smaller is so many people would have never been born - is that really a problem though?

COGlory 3y ago
I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born. So from an objectivist, population average view, perhaps not equivalent to a life saved. But to any individual, it seems to equate to their life being saved.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  > I reckon most of those people would prefer to have been born. Philosophically, this feels like such a weird statement to me. I'm quite sure I'd be 100% fine with never having been born, because there'd be nobody to care about the lack of me in the first place. There are of course an infinite number of people who were never born due to some small butterfly-effect missed connections.
swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
If a family has ten kids, is that family worth more than 3x a family with just one child? That's what gets to me about utilitarian philosophy. By adding more people, something humans are good at, you're increasing the number of people that deserve moral consideration. The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing
- hulitu 3y ago
  > The idea that every life is sacred leads to some trolley-problem level of moralizing "And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space 'Cause there's bugger all down here on earth" "Can we take your liver now" ?
- newyankee 3y ago
  Also the misplaced notion that all religious ideologies are same. Religions followed strictly promote procreation but they do not provide a solution for hunger, using limited resources of the world etc. I can also argue as an Indian that authoritarian Chinese growth over last 4 decades did more to remove people from poverty and increase quality of life (in the process also saving many lives, whatever the cost - 15k Tiananmen deaths etc.) than democratic India where till recently nothing seemed to get done due to corruption, mismanagement and people fighting over limited resources.