= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Life is Good, More Life is Better - 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 (54)
Which is better: a society of immortals who never give birth, or a society that procreates and dies in the normal manner, whose population is stable at the same size?
That is to say, if both equally maximize observer-moments, does the "life-cycle" increase or decrease utility?
Dying and giving birth both seem to involve considerable suffering, so you'd need to augment your stable population with additional assumptions like 'childbirth is rendered painless' before it's even a challenging question.
Then pretend he did. http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Least_convenient_possible_world
Because at some point it stops being least convenient and it becomes 'let me define away any counterpoints which might matter'. Maybe quentin really did forget about birth & death as major disutility generators and pointing out that alone contributes to the discussion.