= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Sideways comments on On dollars, utility, and crack cocaine - 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 (97)
That does introduce another level of complication. Utility functions assume a static model. They are not happiness functions. We talk about maximizing utility all the time on LW, when really we want to maximize happiness.
Maximizing your happiness is a higher level of rationality than maximizing your utility. I think it's still okay to sometimes define "rational" as maximizing expected utility.
(I don't think foreign aid has anything to do with the delta-nature of happiness, btw.)
Countries that rely heavily on foreign aid risk becoming self-stabilizing systems in which increasing foreign aid to Hypothetistan reduces the incentives for Hypothetistanis to be productive, instead of providing capital they need to act on those incentives. This is by no means a complete explanation--I'm just explaining the analogy between self-stabilizing systems more explicitly.
The specs for happiness require it to be self-stabilizing. Poverty can be self-stabilizing, but doesn't have to be.