= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
loup-vaillant comments on Why Bayes? A Wise Ruling - 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 (116)
This is an excellent point I should've noticed myself (though it's been long and long since I encountered the parable). Who says you own a baby just by being its genetic mother?
Albeit sufficiently young babies are plausibly not sentient.
My super-villain side just got slapped by my censors before it could formulate any way to exploit this. I'm still pondering whether this is a good thing.
Hmm. I'm not sure I have the same censors.
My super-villain side went on to try to devise a way to emulate the Rai Stones economy using an abstract exchange of not-yet-sentient babies and various related opportunity costs, before realizing that even my super-villain side is not good enough at economics to conjure efficient economic systems out of thin air like that while making sure that they benefit him.
Certainly, however, my super-villain side did fall back on the secondary, less-desirable option of lending resources and medical assistance to pregnant mothers, such as to have legal ownership claim on the nonsentient babies in order to re-sell them for services or work or money to said mothers afterwards.
Does it sound like a good thing or a bad thing that I can think of this without flinching?
You tell me. <Evil Smile™>