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.

Lumifer comments on Open thread 7th september - 13th september - Less Wrong Discussion

4 Post author: Elo 06 September 2015 10:27PM

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

Article Navigation

Comments (146)
Tags: open_thread

Comments (146)

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

Comment author: gjm 10 September 2015 04:46:37PM -1 points [-]

Suppose the situation is as follows.

  • You can stay. You're then in constant danger, with let's say p=0.1 of each person getting killed.
  • The whole family can leave. The process is risky; let's say p=0.01 of each person getting killed. Then with p=0.5 you find somewhere to stay and are then safe, but if not you have to return (so another p=0.01 of getting killed) and then your situation is as before with p=0.1 of getting killed.
  • One person can leave. Still risky. It might be less risky for a single young fit person who can run and hide and fight better, but let's ignore that. So that one person gets p=0.01 of getting killed; then with p=0.5 they have to come back (another p=0.01 of death) but now the rest of the family can stay put, and otherwise the family goes out to join them (p=0.01 of death again, but now knowing that they will be safe once they're out).

This doesn't seem contrived to me. And in that situation, it seems very reasonable to choose the "send one person first" option. (Even more so if we don't ignore the possibility that one person can get out and investigate other countries more safely than a whole family.)

Comment author: Lumifer 10 September 2015 05:04:25PM 5 points [-]

it seems very reasonable to choose the "send one person first" option

It's very reasonable when you are looking for a better place to live. It's not very reasonable when you are in the situation of a bona fide refugee -- the risks of staying are too high, so you run.

Beides, I think in practice the percentage of those who could not "find somewhere to stay" and had to return is much, much less than 50%. Once you made it to Europe, you're golden.

Comment author: gjm 10 September 2015 08:04:08PM -1 points [-]

It's very reasonable when you are looking for a better place to live. It's not very reasonable when you are in the situation of a bona fide refugee

The entire point of my comment was to sketch a situation in which it might be reasonable for a bona fide refugee. If you think it's an implausible situation or that my analysis of the situation is wrong, fair enough, but it's a bit off just to object on general principles as if I hadn't just given what is intended to be a counterexample.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit