You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

PlaidX comments on An Abortion Dialogue - Less Wrong Discussion

10 Post author: gwern 12 February 2011 01:20AM

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

Comments (90)

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

Comment author: PlaidX 12 February 2011 05:22:05AM 8 points [-]

Killing adults is less reversible in the sense that if you kill comedian carlos mencia, you can't get a new carlos mencia if you change your mind. In contrast, babies are basically fungible.

Comment author: Alicorn 12 February 2011 05:44:38AM 7 points [-]

Babies aren't really fungible; if you have the baby that would have grown up to be Carlos Mencia (to carry on with your example) you can't grow another would-be Carlos Mencia if you change your mind. You just don't know what you're discarding when you discard a baby.

Comment author: JoshuaZ 12 February 2011 05:44:43AM 2 points [-]

In contrast, babies are basically fungible.

This doesn't follow. Just because you don't have data about what counterfactually the baby would have turned into doesn't mean that the babies are fungible. We don't in general keep the genetic code of aborted babies or calculate how that would interact with their environment. Just because we can't easily predict what the distinctions would be doesn't mean that the babies are all identical.

Comment author: Vladimir_Nesov 12 February 2011 03:18:33PM *  17 points [-]

When you're considering a decision of exchanging two babies, you're making it based on what you know to anticipate. If you know nothing relevant, you're ambivalent between exchanging and not exchanging, which is what "fungible" means.

(The dollar bills are also not identical, and where one bill can buy you a snack, another won't work by being suspected counterfeit in a manner you didn't expect. Such considerations don't make cash non-fungible.)

Comment author: DSimon 07 March 2011 08:00:02PM *  1 point [-]

If you know nothing relevant, you're ambivalent between exchanging and not exchanging, which is what "fungible" means.

I see where you're coming from, but I'm not sure that's a useful use of the concept of "fungible". The reason why it's useful to think of dollar bills as fungible is because we can use them to think about more complicated exchanges (i.e. dollars -> cow -> cow + milk -> cow + dollars -> ...) and figure out a net result by comparing before and after quantities of the highly fungible little notes. Sure, it's possible that a given dollar might turn out to be counterfeit, but it only takes a little knowledge and a few moments of examination to become very confident about whether or not that's the case for a given note.

On the other hand, I'd be very reluctant to use babies as a unit of exchange even if I ignored the obvious moral problems: babies are much much harder to compare for equality than dollars.