My point is that for me, extinction is not equivalent to losing current amount of lives now.
Human extinction now for me is worse than losing 10 trillion people, if the global population was 100 trillion.
This is because extinction destroys all potential future utility. It destroys thw potential of humanity.
I’m saying that extinction can’t be evaluated normally, so you need a better example to state your argument against LUH.
Extinction now is worse than losing X people, if the global human population is 10 X, irregardless of how large X is.
That position above is independent of the linear utility hypothesis.
It was specified that the total future population in each scenario was 10^100 and 10^102. These numbers are the future people that couldn’t exist if humanity goes extinct.
My point is that for me, extinction is not equivalent to losing current amount of lives now.
This is because extinction destroys all potential future utility. It destroys thw potential of humanity.
I’m saying that extinction can’t be evaluated normally, so you need a better example to state your argument against LUH.
Extinction now is worse than losing X people, if the global human population is 10 X, irregardless of how large X is.
That position above is independent of the linear utility hypothesis.
It was specified that the total future population in each scenario was 10^100 and 10^102. These numbers are the future people that couldn’t exist if humanity goes extinct.