= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Vaniver comments on Ambitious utilitarians must concern themselves with death - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (13)
This should not surprise you; the discussions about morality among utilitarians are rather superficial.
It seems to you that lives are usually not worth living? This should be cause for immediate concern about the structure of your life; philosophical troubles can wait.
In your opinion, who does have the most insight into morality?
That's the angst of antinatalism: can one say "these lives should not have been created" and "these lives are still worth living"?
You once wrote "life on the farm is, for most, horrible". Would you still agree with that? Does it imply that antinatalism is correct in societies where most people are farmers?
Game theorists.
Yes, but why would one want to?
Yes. I will note that it was in the context of a rural America vs. an industrial America; given that real choice between potential states, I saw far more glory and happiness in the latter than the former.
No, because choices should be made in the context of the real alternatives facing the decision-maker. Agricultural lives may be worse suited to the preferences of most people than industrial lives, and industrial lives may be worse suited to the preferences of most people than post-singularity lives, but the choice facing any potential parent in any of those ages is "would I prefer another human related to me in era X, or not?" rather than "what era would I like my child to be born in?"