Also I agree with you that the “preserve every pulse” kind of thinking could lead to an impractical situation , but I also think that the correct approach for this issue is the “in medio stat virtus” approach being something like “If you create damages to society which are greater than your contribution to it for a continued period of e.g. 5 years” your life would not be worth preserving
Do you realize that under such guidelines, one could easily make the case for most of the unemployed people to be eradicated? I’m pretty sure that’s not your goal here.
So are you seriously claiming that you can’t see the correlation between number of humans alive on the Earth and average quality of life and progress achieved by our specie?
I can see the correlation, but I think you have the causation backwards. The case for progress and quality of life leading to increases in human population seems much more straightforward to me. In my simplified model, progress is increased production. Quality of life is production per capita. But when quality of life raises, so does natality and death drops, until human population has absorbed most of the additional production and people are just slightly better off than before.
Do you realize that under such guidelines, one could easily make the case for most of the unemployed people to be eradicated? I’m pretty sure that’s not your goal here.
I can see the correlation, but I think you have the causation backwards. The case for progress and quality of life leading to increases in human population seems much more straightforward to me. In my simplified model, progress is increased production. Quality of life is production per capita. But when quality of life raises, so does natality and death drops, until human population has absorbed most of the additional production and people are just slightly better off than before.