shminux comments on The Mere Cable Channel Addition Paradox - Less Wrong

64 Post author: Ghatanathoah 26 July 2012 07:20AM

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

Comments (145)

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

Comment author: TheOtherDave 27 July 2012 05:50:10PM *  1 point [-]

Well... hrm.

I have evidence that if my current happiness level is the baseline, I prefer the continued existence of at least one sub-baseline-happy person (myself) to their nonexistence. That is, when I go through depressive episodes in which I am significantly less happy than I am right now, I still want to keep existing.

I suspect that generalizes, though it's really hard to have data about other people's happiness.

It seems to me that if I endorse that choice (which I think I do), I ought not reject creating a new person whom I would otherwise create, simply because their existence is sub-baseline-happy.

That said, it also seems to me that there's a level of unhappiness below which I would prefer to end my existence rather than continue my existence at that level. (I go through periods of those as well, which I get through by remembering that they are transient.) I'm much more inclined to treat that level as the baseline.

Comment author: shminux 28 July 2012 06:38:59PM 1 point [-]

I prefer the continued existence of at least one sub-baseline-happy person (myself) to their nonexistence.

This does not contradict what I said. Creation != continued existence, as emphasized in the OP. There is a significant hysteresis between the two. You don't want to have children less happy than you are, but you won't kill your own unhappy children.

Comment author: TheOtherDave 28 July 2012 07:54:56PM 1 point [-]

Agreed that creation != continued existence.

There are situations under which I would kill my own unhappy children. Indeed, there are even such situations where, were they happier, I would not kill them. However, "less happy than I am" does not describe those situations.

Comment author: shminux 28 July 2012 10:05:14PM 0 points [-]

Looks like we agree, then.