2 upvotes, 0 direct replies (showing 0)
To me it seems obvious that an ecologically intact world of 500 million people living rich happy lives is immeasurably preferable to a ravaged dystopia of 50 billion miserable wretches, in the same way I prefer kids not to get leukemia.
Is it better then, to abort the children who may develop leukemia, and focus on the others? Or does the child with leukemia also have a life worth living? My understanding is that "the repugnant conclusion" presupposes that all of the lives in question are worth living. If your "ravaged dystopia of 50 billion miserable wretches" don't find their lives worthwhile, they they wouldn't factor into the repugnant conclusion.
There's nothing here!