3 ms·

> Why should a life style support that many, if valid? Personally, I would say a lifestyle that isn't just a thought experiment should answer one of A) How

> Why should a life style support that many, if valid? Personally, I would say a lifestyle that isn't just a thought experiment should answer one of A) How do you support the current population of the planet like this? B) How do you humanely reduce the population over time if you can't? Obviously still value in thought experiments, but if you're talking about real life, ignoring those two questions gets a bit euthanasia/genocide-y pretty easily. "Every human being alive today not existing" should probably not pass the lifestyle test suite, right?

binary132 2y ago
Most people in the world can’t work high-income jobs or live in nice single-family houses in pleasant spacious places. It seems like the rubric you are proposing would ban people who are able to enjoy these privileges from thinking about how they can improve their own lifestyles. Regression to mean is not my objective for myself or my family. That said, I certainly believe we should do what we can to improve the lot for most people, but it is simply not realistic to imagine that the only valid ways of life are those which can scale to the whole global population. The world’s a very big place with a hugely diverse set of possible “valid” lifestyles (and limited ability to influence their reality). So what’s the big deal with proposing that maybe for some people a return to the land or to subsistence is a legitimate option?
wruza 2y ago
We clearly don’t support anything now, so this argument seems to be in the same category of wishful thinking. These questions could be asked if the current system passed the tests. People already have 0-1 kids. They gather in packs to live in cardboard boxes with nominal utilities. A system with free agents is very prone to painting itself into a corner, it’s unstable by design. One of the issues that we have is that on the brink of catastrophe we are still asking ourselves whether the less carastrophic measures are ethical. But times of “we do what we want” end with the last decent square mile allocated for crops and housing. We’re at such hard physical limits for the first time, so it will take a couple of world wars to figure out new rules, I guess.

binary132 2y ago

Most people in the world can’t work high-income jobs or live in nice single-family houses in pleasant spacious places. It seems like the rubric you are proposing would ban people who are able to enjoy these privileges from thinking about how they can improve their own lifestyles. Regression to mean is not my objective for myself or my family. That said, I certainly believe we should do what we can to improve the lot for most people, but it is simply not realistic to imagine that the only valid ways of life are those which can scale to the whole global population. The world’s a very big place with a hugely diverse set of possible “valid” lifestyles (and limited ability to influence their reality). So what’s the big deal with proposing that maybe for some people a return to the land or to subsistence is a legitimate option?

wruza 2y ago

We clearly don’t support anything now, so this argument seems to be in the same category of wishful thinking. These questions could be asked if the current system passed the tests. People already have 0-1 kids. They gather in packs to live in cardboard boxes with nominal utilities. A system with free agents is very prone to painting itself into a corner, it’s unstable by design. One of the issues that we have is that on the brink of catastrophe we are still asking ourselves whether the less carastrophic measures are ethical. But times of “we do what we want” end with the last decent square mile allocated for crops and housing. We’re at such hard physical limits for the first time, so it will take a couple of world wars to figure out new rules, I guess.