orthonormal comments on Shut Up and Divide? - Less Wrong

60 Post author: Wei_Dai 09 February 2010 08:09PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (258)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: orthonormal 15 February 2010 12:58:54AM 1 point [-]

That's a flimsy rejection, since Phil mentioned donating to programs that provide contraceptives in the Third World.

Comment author: SirBacon 16 February 2010 04:42:25AM 0 points [-]

GDP per capita is a better predictor of fertility than access to contraceptives.

The rejection is only as flimsy as the contraceptive programs are effective, on the margins where increased funding might make a difference. They may not be very effective at all while additional children are still profitable.

"Socioeconomic development is considered the main cause of a decline over time in the benefits of having children and a rise in their costs."

"http://www.jstor.org/pss/20058399"

Comment author: brazil84 15 February 2010 02:10:52AM 0 points [-]

Well I agree that to the extent that the "aid" we are talking about is contraception, then my "don't feed stray animals" objection clearly doesn't apply.

Comment author: orthonormal 15 February 2010 02:36:46AM *  0 points [-]

Fair enough. I agree with mattnewport as well, though I'd say that 'providing someone with aid that may extend their life' is probably a moral obligation to some extent, in a reasonable extrapolation of my and your revealed values.