You imply that doubling extreme poverty would be a good thing if it comes with a doubling of the rest of the population.
Kind of? The point of the second plot is to show that we didn’t get where we are in fractional terms by murdering the poor, which would be bad, I think, regardless of whether one holds that doubling the overall population is good or bad. And if we got where we are in fractional terms by adding rich people without actually cutting into the number of poor people, that would be bad too, though not as bad as murdering them.
Of course, the plots can’t show that we didn’t grow the rich population while also killing the poor, but, well, that’s not what happened either.
I at one point phrased it “comes with a doubling of the (larger) rest of the population” to make it more clear, but deleted it for a reason I have no introspective access to.
And if we got where we are in fractional terms by adding rich people without actually cutting into the number of poor people, that would be bad too, though not as bad as murdering them.
It would, obviously, if there are better alternatives. In consequentialism, everything where you have better viable alternatives is bad to some extent. What I meant is: If the only way to double the rest of the population is by also doubling the part that’s in extreme poverty, then the OP’s values implies that it would be a good thing. I’m not saying this view is crazy, I’m just saying that creating the impression that it’s some sort of LW-consensus is mistaken. And in a latter point I added that it makes me, and probably also other people with different values, feel unwelcome. It’s bad for an open dialogue on values.
Kind of? The point of the second plot is to show that we didn’t get where we are in fractional terms by murdering the poor, which would be bad, I think, regardless of whether one holds that doubling the overall population is good or bad. And if we got where we are in fractional terms by adding rich people without actually cutting into the number of poor people, that would be bad too, though not as bad as murdering them.
Of course, the plots can’t show that we didn’t grow the rich population while also killing the poor, but, well, that’s not what happened either.
I at one point phrased it “comes with a doubling of the (larger) rest of the population” to make it more clear, but deleted it for a reason I have no introspective access to.
It would, obviously, if there are better alternatives. In consequentialism, everything where you have better viable alternatives is bad to some extent. What I meant is: If the only way to double the rest of the population is by also doubling the part that’s in extreme poverty, then the OP’s values implies that it would be a good thing. I’m not saying this view is crazy, I’m just saying that creating the impression that it’s some sort of LW-consensus is mistaken. And in a latter point I added that it makes me, and probably also other people with different values, feel unwelcome. It’s bad for an open dialogue on values.