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.

gwern 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.

Article Navigation

Comments (145)
Tags: morality ethics utilitarianism

Comments (145)

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

Comment author: asparisi 27 July 2012 12:29:49AM 0 points [-]

I think I mostly agree with you, although we'd have to define how many utilions per person were "worth living" for your criticism against example Sx to work. And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war. (Which is why we've only seen the reversal of this trend relatively recently)

I am not sure that your 3rd criteria is required: it would seem that as long as adding a new person added more utilions than not, adding a new person would be preferable. But in those cases, it might form a curve rather than a line, where you get diminishing returns after getting a population of a certain size, eliminating (at least) the paradoxical element.

I do think that the insight of talking about resources to utility in a good insight here, but it's good to know where it is weak.

Comment author: gwern 27 July 2012 12:48:08AM 1 point [-]

And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war. (Which is why we've only seen the reversal of this trend relatively recently)

Well, yes; Malthusian models would even predict this, since if another person didn't add resources, that reduces resources per capita (the denominator increased, the numerator didn't), and this could continue until resources per capita fall below subsistence, at which point every additional person must cause an additional death/failure-to-reproduce/etc. and the population has reached a steady state.

So every new additional person does allow new resources to be opened up or exploited - more marginal farmland farmed - but every new resource is (diminishing marginal returns, the best stuff is always used first) worse than the previous new resource...

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit