= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
DanielLC 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)
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.
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.