I like the idea here, but it seems like the paradox survives.
Say that A consists of 2 populations and 2 sets of resources. (Px, Py) (Rx, Ry) Rx is enough to grant some high number of utilions per person in Px: say 100, while Ry is only enough to grant some very low number of utilions per person: say .0001.
In A+ we combine them. Assuming that Px=Rx for the moment, the average Utility lowers to 50.00005 per person. And with each group and resources added, you get closer to .0001.
And it doesn’t have to stop there, if we imagine some future population Sx who have resources Sy that allows them to get 10^-10 utilions per person, for example.
Which means that as long as doing so adds some arbitrarily small amount of resources, adding people is a net benefit. Which might produce a curve, at some point, where adding people doesn’t help to add resources. But if it doesn’t then the problem still stands.
while Ry is only enough to grant some very low number of utilions per person: say .0001
And it doesn’t have to stop there, if we imagine some future population Sx who have resources Sy that allows them to get 10^-10 utilions per person, for example.
Part of the original premise of the paradox is that even the people of population Z, the vast population the paradox leads to, still have lives that are “barely worth living.” So you can’t go that far, the population has to have enough utilons per person that their lives are barely worth living.
Which means that as long as doing so adds some arbitrarily small amount of resources, adding people is a net benefit.
Yes, one weakness in this argument is that it still allows the Mere Addition Paradox to happen if the following criteria are met:
The addition of a new person also adds more resources.
The amount of new resources added is enough to give the new person a life “barely worth living.”
The only way to obtain those new resources is to create that new person. The people currently existing would be unable to obtain the resources without creating that person.
I think that my argument is still useful because of the low odds of encountering a situation that fulfills all those criteria, especially 3, in real life. It means that people no longer need to worry that they are committing some horrible moral wrong by not having as many children as possible.
I think I mostly agree with you, although we’d have to define how many utilions per person were “worth living” for your criticism against example Sx to work. And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war. (Which is why we’ve only seen the reversal of this trend relatively recently)
I am not sure that your 3rd criteria is required: it would seem that as long as adding a new person added more utilions than not, adding a new person would be preferable. But in those cases, it might form a curve rather than a line, where you get diminishing returns after getting a population of a certain size, eliminating (at least) the paradoxical element.
I do think that the insight of talking about resources to utility in a good insight here, but it’s good to know where it is weak.
And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war. (Which is why we’ve only seen the reversal of this trend relatively recently)
Well, yes; Malthusian models would even predict this, since if another person didn’t add resources, that reduces resources per capita (the denominator increased, the numerator didn’t), and this could continue until resources per capita fall below subsistence, at which point every additional person must cause an additional death/failure-to-reproduce/etc. and the population has reached a steady state.
So every new additional person does allow new resources to be opened up or exploited—more marginal farmland farmed—but every new resource is (diminishing marginal returns, the best stuff is always used first) worse than the previous new resource...
And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war.
That might be correct. However, my argument also deals with the most efficient way to create people who add resources (when I argued A++ was better than A+).
For instance, suppose there are enough resources to sustain 100 people at a life barely worth living can be extracted from a mine, and you need to create some people to do it. A person working by hand can extract 1 person worth of resources, enough for their own subsistance. A person with mining equipment can extract 10 people worth of resources. You can either create 100 people who do it by hand, or you can create 10 people and make them mining equipment (assume that creating and maintaining the mining equipment is as expensive as creating 15 people with lives barely worth living). Which should you do?
I would argue that, unless the human population is near extinction levels, you should create the 10 people with the mining equipment. This is because it will create a large surplus of 75 people worth of resources to enhance the lives of the 10 people, and other people who already exist.
Technology can alter these economies, and I am certainly not saying we should all go to subsistance farming to avoid the paradox. I think making the calculation “equipment=making X lives” is a little off the mark: typically, you’d subtract Utilions (if you are trading for the mining equipment) and add workers. (for repair/maintainence) so you might end up with, say, 12 people, 10 who mine and 2 who repair, and 85 utilions rather than 100. But the end math of who gets how much ends up about the same as your hypothetical.
I like the idea here, but it seems like the paradox survives.
Say that A consists of 2 populations and 2 sets of resources. (Px, Py) (Rx, Ry) Rx is enough to grant some high number of utilions per person in Px: say 100, while Ry is only enough to grant some very low number of utilions per person: say .0001.
In A+ we combine them. Assuming that Px=Rx for the moment, the average Utility lowers to 50.00005 per person. And with each group and resources added, you get closer to .0001.
And it doesn’t have to stop there, if we imagine some future population Sx who have resources Sy that allows them to get 10^-10 utilions per person, for example.
Which means that as long as doing so adds some arbitrarily small amount of resources, adding people is a net benefit. Which might produce a curve, at some point, where adding people doesn’t help to add resources. But if it doesn’t then the problem still stands.
Part of the original premise of the paradox is that even the people of population Z, the vast population the paradox leads to, still have lives that are “barely worth living.” So you can’t go that far, the population has to have enough utilons per person that their lives are barely worth living.
Yes, one weakness in this argument is that it still allows the Mere Addition Paradox to happen if the following criteria are met:
The addition of a new person also adds more resources.
The amount of new resources added is enough to give the new person a life “barely worth living.”
The only way to obtain those new resources is to create that new person. The people currently existing would be unable to obtain the resources without creating that person.
I think that my argument is still useful because of the low odds of encountering a situation that fulfills all those criteria, especially 3, in real life. It means that people no longer need to worry that they are committing some horrible moral wrong by not having as many children as possible.
I think I mostly agree with you, although we’d have to define how many utilions per person were “worth living” for your criticism against example Sx to work. And actually, for most of human history, I think that adding a new person was, on the whole, more likely to add resources, particularly in agricultural communities and in times of war. (Which is why we’ve only seen the reversal of this trend relatively recently)
I am not sure that your 3rd criteria is required: it would seem that as long as adding a new person added more utilions than not, adding a new person would be preferable. But in those cases, it might form a curve rather than a line, where you get diminishing returns after getting a population of a certain size, eliminating (at least) the paradoxical element.
I do think that the insight of talking about resources to utility in a good insight here, but it’s good to know where it is weak.
Well, yes; Malthusian models would even predict this, since if another person didn’t add resources, that reduces resources per capita (the denominator increased, the numerator didn’t), and this could continue until resources per capita fall below subsistence, at which point every additional person must cause an additional death/failure-to-reproduce/etc. and the population has reached a steady state.
So every new additional person does allow new resources to be opened up or exploited—more marginal farmland farmed—but every new resource is (diminishing marginal returns, the best stuff is always used first) worse than the previous new resource...
That might be correct. However, my argument also deals with the most efficient way to create people who add resources (when I argued A++ was better than A+).
For instance, suppose there are enough resources to sustain 100 people at a life barely worth living can be extracted from a mine, and you need to create some people to do it. A person working by hand can extract 1 person worth of resources, enough for their own subsistance. A person with mining equipment can extract 10 people worth of resources. You can either create 100 people who do it by hand, or you can create 10 people and make them mining equipment (assume that creating and maintaining the mining equipment is as expensive as creating 15 people with lives barely worth living). Which should you do?
I would argue that, unless the human population is near extinction levels, you should create the 10 people with the mining equipment. This is because it will create a large surplus of 75 people worth of resources to enhance the lives of the 10 people, and other people who already exist.
Technology can alter these economies, and I am certainly not saying we should all go to subsistance farming to avoid the paradox. I think making the calculation “equipment=making X lives” is a little off the mark: typically, you’d subtract Utilions (if you are trading for the mining equipment) and add workers. (for repair/maintainence) so you might end up with, say, 12 people, 10 who mine and 2 who repair, and 85 utilions rather than 100. But the end math of who gets how much ends up about the same as your hypothetical.