= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kingreaper comments on Open Thread: July 2010 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (653)
Even if antinatalism is true at present (I have no major opinion on the issue yet) it need not be true in all possible future scenarios.
In fact, should the human race shrink significantly [due to antinatalism perhaps], without societal collapse, the average utility of a human life should increase. I find it highly unlikely that even the maximum average utility is still less than zero.
Why shouldn't having a higher population lead to greater specialization of labor, economies of scale, greater gains from trade, and thus greater average utility?
Resource limitations.
There is only a limited amount of any given resource available. Decreasing the number of people therefore increases the amount of resource available per person.
There is a point at which decreasing the population will begin decreasing average utility, but to me it seems nigh certain that that point is significantly below the current population.
I could be wrong, and if I am wrong I would like to know.
Do you feel that the current population is optimum, below optimum, or above optimum?
Because of the law of diminishing returns (marginal utility). If you have a billion humans one more (less) results in a bigger increase (decrease) in utility than if you have a trillion.
Whose utility? The extra human's utility will be the same in both cases.