handoflixue comments on One Life Against the World - Less Wrong

32 Post author: Eliezer_Yudkowsky 18 May 2007 10:06PM

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

Comments (81)

Sort By: Old

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

Comment author: handoflixue 25 January 2013 08:45:06PM 2 points [-]

Well, yes, but my point is that this is a rather unreasonable clause, since if we actually pay attention to what we can efficiently do, "have children" doesn't even make the Top 100. So why would you possibly focus on "have children", and treat it as a dilemma?

I interpreted that line as a cached-though / brush off, not "of course I've done the math, and there's a thousand more effective things, but I still find it odd that having children can EVER be a positive act. I mean, ew, babies! Those can't be good for the world o.o"

Comment author: MugaSofer 28 January 2013 02:08:47PM 2 points [-]

I suppose it's the difference between asking "is it better to blow up the train" and asking "can it be better to blow up the train?" It's worth noting that even if we have an obligation to create lives, our obligation to save them is easier to fulfill; but it's still worth knowing if the two are actually equivalent.

Reading the original comment, adam does, in fact, seem to have assumed that having children would be the right choice if it mattered, so ... point, I guess.

Comment author: handoflixue 30 January 2013 09:59:59PM 3 points [-]

I suppose it's the difference between asking "is it better to blow up the train" and asking "can it be better to blow up the train?"

Oooh, I like that distinction, and will try to remember it in the future :)