Comment by LocatedEagle232 on 14/01/2020 at 01:34 UTC

4 upvotes, 4 direct replies (showing 4)

View submission: On population ethics, the development of Derek Parfit's thought, and the origin of Parfit's "repugnant conclusion"

Realistically, none of the main population concerns will apply to our lives, only those of generations of descendants. However, by the time they are born, we will be dead and we wont know them or their circumstances. Basically they become strangers and we lose some emotional attachment that would be bound to our own children.

We try to find universal solutions and equations to everything, but this problem, to me, seems like asking the purpose of life. Everyone has a different answer. It depends on their background and experiences.

Implying that any of these philosophers ideas is the ideal solution means morally leaning towards them. Morales are generally subjective and that means there is no morally correct way of dealing with population control. We simply have to do what we believe is the best option. It's humbling and almost humiliating to accept that at our best, we are unique individuals that will accomplish things through conflict and reaching for the best scenario, while, at our worst, we are silly animals trying to list out the entire sequence of pi.

Replies

Comment by drcopus at 14/01/2020 at 02:28 UTC

10 upvotes, 1 direct replies

Realistically, none of the main population concerns will apply to our lives

The study of artificial intelligence is an example of a practical issue that is impacted by this philosophy. There are theorems that show that anyway we program an intelligent system it will be equivalent to (or eventually become through self-modification) an approximately rational utilitarian agent.

Therefore, how do we build AIs that do not fall prey to some form of the repugnant conclusion? There are some suggestions in the literature, but no slam-dunk solution.

We try to find universal solutions and equations to everything, but this problem, to me, seems like asking the purpose of life.

I agree in principle, but if we don't at least concretise some idea of our meta-ethics, or meta-meta-ethics (etc.), we could be in trouble.

Comment by [deleted] at 14/01/2020 at 04:05 UTC*

0 upvotes, 1 direct replies

scale languid teeny cows outgoing sleep yoke enter correct cagey `this post was mass deleted with www.Redact.dev`

Comment by U_Sam at 14/01/2020 at 04:18 UTC

0 upvotes, 1 direct replies

What are the “main population concerns”? Population is absolutely already having an effect.

Comment by ntvirtue at 14/01/2020 at 02:29 UTC

-1 upvotes, 1 direct replies

https://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/[1][2]

1: https://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/

2: https://time.com/4711023/how-to-keep-your-dna-from-aging/

​

Sorry what were you saying?