How much would you pay to save a random stranger’s life? How much would you pay to save 100 strangers?
If I have the chance to abstract the decision, $0. I expect decreased population to increase the chance of a desireable long term future (ie. One without human extinction.)
In most cases, I would suffer extreme akrasia when faced with such a decision. I have remarkably strong emotional impulses towards heroism. Not so much the ‘being a hero’ part. It’s more like I experience wrath for whatever ‘bad thing’ (such as death) is occurring and would combat it even when it made me appear the villain.
Don’t worry, the aforementioned akrasia and the rather low weight I place on the topic will prevent me from declaring a jihad on excess population.
In human social situations the optimal response it seldom to answer it, at least not directly. With morally relevant questions in particular the correct action is to respond in such a way as to demonstrate in group status. To do otherwise is either naive or contrary.
This is a rare case in that I actually appreciate the downvote (metaphoric status slap). This demonstrates (to me at least) that what we do in these threads is a very different thing to multiplication, and the discussion thereof. Given that this sort of discussion is one where I expect impulses towards bias to be amplified keeping that fact primed is important. (To me at least. There is of course the ‘punish those who don’t punish the defectors’ strategy to be aware of.)
Notice the ‘rather low weight’ bit? The value I place on my own life is rather high. I directly value my own existence. Not only that, the expected value of the utility of the rest of the universe is higher with me alive than not. That is, I believe I have a valuable contribution to make. I expect this is a common position.
I expect it is a very common position, which is actually my point. Most of the people you think the world would be better without probably hold the same position, saying they have a valuable contribution to make.
Underlying your point here, and far more so the bizarre question ‘why don’t you kill yourself?’ are some assumptions. Without those premises your implied arguments are completely irrelevant. If you write those premises out explicitly it may be obvious from what I have said so far which I do not share.
Edit: ‘Completely’ irrelevant. is not accurate. “Why don’t you kill yourself?” is relevant yet trivial.
If I have the chance to abstract the decision, $0. I expect decreased population to increase the chance of a desireable long term future (ie. One without human extinction.)
In most cases, I would suffer extreme akrasia when faced with such a decision. I have remarkably strong emotional impulses towards heroism. Not so much the ‘being a hero’ part. It’s more like I experience wrath for whatever ‘bad thing’ (such as death) is occurring and would combat it even when it made me appear the villain.
Don’t worry, the aforementioned akrasia and the rather low weight I place on the topic will prevent me from declaring a jihad on excess population.
In human social situations the optimal response it seldom to answer it, at least not directly. With morally relevant questions in particular the correct action is to respond in such a way as to demonstrate in group status. To do otherwise is either naive or contrary.
This is a rare case in that I actually appreciate the downvote (metaphoric status slap). This demonstrates (to me at least) that what we do in these threads is a very different thing to multiplication, and the discussion thereof. Given that this sort of discussion is one where I expect impulses towards bias to be amplified keeping that fact primed is important. (To me at least. There is of course the ‘punish those who don’t punish the defectors’ strategy to be aware of.)
A snarky but half-serious question: Why don’t you kill yourself?
Notice the ‘rather low weight’ bit? The value I place on my own life is rather high. I directly value my own existence. Not only that, the expected value of the utility of the rest of the universe is higher with me alive than not. That is, I believe I have a valuable contribution to make. I expect this is a common position.
I expect it is a very common position, which is actually my point. Most of the people you think the world would be better without probably hold the same position, saying they have a valuable contribution to make.
Underlying your point here, and far more so the bizarre question ‘why don’t you kill yourself?’ are some assumptions. Without those premises your implied arguments are completely irrelevant. If you write those premises out explicitly it may be obvious from what I have said so far which I do not share.
Edit: ‘Completely’ irrelevant. is not accurate. “Why don’t you kill yourself?” is relevant yet trivial.