= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Michaelos comments on Weak repugnant conclusion need not be so repugnant given fixed resources - 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 (48)
Question: How does time fit into this algorithm?
My understanding is the repugnant conclusion is generally thought of as worse than the alternative, but not bad.
I think that implies if someone offered you 3^^^3 years of the repugnant conclusion, or 1 year of true bliss, and the repugnant conclusion gave happiness a mere trillionth as intense as true bliss, and we are simply multiplying S by time, then 3^^^3 years of the repugnant conclusion is better than a year of true bliss.
But I don't know if it is assumed that we need to simply multiply by time, unadjusted (for instance, in S, the logarithm of population size is used.)
This assumes that adding more people is the same as extending the lives of current people - which is the main point of contention.