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.

Ghatanathoah comments on The Mere Cable Channel Addition Paradox - Less Wrong Discussion

64 Post author: Ghatanathoah 26 July 2012 07:20AM

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

Comments (145)

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

Comment author: cousin_it 26 July 2012 10:34:06AM *  12 points [-]

I've eliminated it as a possibility from any situation that is remotely likely to happen in real life

Hmm, I can imagine situations where you can't extract the resources without adding people. For example, should humans settle a place if it can support life, but only at a low level of comfort, and exporting resources from there isn't economically viable?

Comment author: Ghatanathoah 26 July 2012 11:39:13PM 1 point [-]

It seems to me that if the settlement is done voluntarily that it must fulfill some preference that the settlers value more than comfort. Freedom, adventure, or the feeling that you're part of something bigger, to name three possibilities. For that reason their lives couldn't really be said to have lowered in quality. If it's done involuntarily my first instinct is to say that no, we shouldn't do it, although you could probably get me to say yes by introducing some extenuating circumstance, like it being the only way to prevent extinction.

Of course, this then brings up the issue of whether or not the settlers should have children who might not feel the same way they do. I'm much less sure about the morality of doing that.

Comment author: cousin_it 27 July 2012 10:39:28AM *  0 points [-]

Yes, the scenario involves adding people, not just moving them around. That's what makes population ethics tricky.