= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Prismattic comments on Post ridiculous munchkin ideas! - 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 (1240)
I didn't say I was a total utilitarian, though. But someone who accepts the repugnant conclusion probably should act this way.
Raising children is expensive. There are cheaper ways to increase the population.
Ok, but then it's no longer "the same logic." Tulpas are free!
That is not free.
This seems like a non sequitur.
Anyway, creating tulpas is presumably much cheaper than raising an actual child, for anyone. So once the low hanging fruit in donating money to a charity that increases actual population or whatever, creating tulpas will be a much more efficient way of increasing the population, assuming they 'count' in the utility function separately and everything.
Or even better, do sperm donation. You're out maybe a few score hours at worst, for the chance of getting scores to hundreds (yes, really) of children. Compare that to a tulpa, where the guides on Reddit are estimating something like 100 hours to build up a reasonable tulpa, or raising a kid yourself (thousands of hours?).
But someone still has to raise the kid at some point, and besides, not everyone can make sperm.
I'm not sure that sperm banks have an oversupply; apparently England has something of a shortage due to its questionable decision to ban anonymous donation, which is why our David Gerard reports back that it was very easy to do even though he's old enough he wouldn't even be considered in the USA as far as I can tell.
It's possible to donate eggs, though it's not nearly as much fun.
Not everyone is fertile. I can't make either, currently.
But my point is that someone still has to take the cost of raising the child. So a utilitarian might try to convince more people to make tulpas instead of making more babies.
They wouldn't otherwise be working to increase the population, so the cost is negligible.
But someone can. Pay them to do it.
I just said there are cheaper ways to increase the population. You have to compare it to them. How does it compare to sperm donation? Saving lives?
I don't think additional sperm donors will increase the population - I don't think lack of donors is the bottleneck.
Saving lives probably doesn't either, if the demographic transition model is true. At least, saving child lives probably results in lower birthrates - perhaps saving adults doesn't affect birthrate.
Depends on the country.
I'm told there are areas where it's illegal to get paid to "donate" sperm. I think it's a bottleneck there.