I would like this better if you’d clarified which decisions or actions you’re evaluating. I’d also prefer you not imply that “is it ethical” is a question that makes any sense without more context. And finally, you should at least mention other explorations of population ethics, including Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox). That said, it’s always interesting to hear different positions on the topic, and I don’t want to discourage that. You’re clear that it’s ok (or maybe even good) to seek life extension in the current world. And you imply that there is some potential future state where it’s not OK. Where would you draw the line?
Note that your exploration doesn’t require immortality, only the decision of whether a given set of resources is used to enhance/extend one life, or to enhance/create/extend another. This is no different than any other resource allocation question, is it? Specifically, does your exploration address anything different from “if you choose to live another day, you use resources that would otherwise be available to someone else”? And is that significantly different from “if you buy a latte rather than drinking tap water, you use resources that would otherwise be available to someone else”?
On reflection, I agree that this post could benefit from a clearer example framed as a decision. Of course, I have also sidestepped the discussion of ethical premises.
More context in population ethics would be nice but I wanted to avoid focusing on the Repugnant Conclusion because the goal was to examine a more neglected question: how do we trade off utility between existing lives and potentially-existing lives?
This is no different than any other resource allocation question, is it?
Sort of! It is mostly a resource allocation question if you are willing to trade utility between existing lives and potentially-existing lives (as I am). But many people disagree with this instinctively. Additionally, there are network effects to consider, in scenario 2 there are a lot more possible activities which are not possible in scenario 1.
I don’t have concrete answers on all of these questions, but most people seem to have a strong presumption for a world more like scenario 1, which seems unjustified.
I would like this better if you’d clarified which decisions or actions you’re evaluating. I’d also prefer you not imply that “is it ethical” is a question that makes any sense without more context. And finally, you should at least mention other explorations of population ethics, including Parfit’s Repugnant Conclusion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mere_addition_paradox). That said, it’s always interesting to hear different positions on the topic, and I don’t want to discourage that. You’re clear that it’s ok (or maybe even good) to seek life extension in the current world. And you imply that there is some potential future state where it’s not OK. Where would you draw the line?
Note that your exploration doesn’t require immortality, only the decision of whether a given set of resources is used to enhance/extend one life, or to enhance/create/extend another. This is no different than any other resource allocation question, is it? Specifically, does your exploration address anything different from “if you choose to live another day, you use resources that would otherwise be available to someone else”? And is that significantly different from “if you buy a latte rather than drinking tap water, you use resources that would otherwise be available to someone else”?
I appreciate your feedback!
On reflection, I agree that this post could benefit from a clearer example framed as a decision. Of course, I have also sidestepped the discussion of ethical premises.
More context in population ethics would be nice but I wanted to avoid focusing on the Repugnant Conclusion because the goal was to examine a more neglected question: how do we trade off utility between existing lives and potentially-existing lives?
Sort of! It is mostly a resource allocation question if you are willing to trade utility between existing lives and potentially-existing lives (as I am). But many people disagree with this instinctively. Additionally, there are network effects to consider, in scenario 2 there are a lot more possible activities which are not possible in scenario 1.
I don’t have concrete answers on all of these questions, but most people seem to have a strong presumption for a world more like scenario 1, which seems unjustified.