I at one point phrased it “comes with a doubling of the (larger) rest of the population” to make it more clear, but deleted it for a reason I have no introspective access to.
And if we got where we are in fractional terms by adding rich people without actually cutting into the number of poor people, that would be bad too, though not as bad as murdering them.
It would, obviously, if there are better alternatives. In consequentialism, everything where you have better viable alternatives is bad to some extent. What I meant is: If the only way to double the rest of the population is by also doubling the part that’s in extreme poverty, then the OP’s values implies that it would be a good thing. I’m not saying this view is crazy, I’m just saying that creating the impression that it’s some sort of LW-consensus is mistaken. And in a latter point I added that it makes me, and probably also other people with different values, feel unwelcome. It’s bad for an open dialogue on values.
I at one point phrased it “comes with a doubling of the (larger) rest of the population” to make it more clear, but deleted it for a reason I have no introspective access to.
It would, obviously, if there are better alternatives. In consequentialism, everything where you have better viable alternatives is bad to some extent. What I meant is: If the only way to double the rest of the population is by also doubling the part that’s in extreme poverty, then the OP’s values implies that it would be a good thing. I’m not saying this view is crazy, I’m just saying that creating the impression that it’s some sort of LW-consensus is mistaken. And in a latter point I added that it makes me, and probably also other people with different values, feel unwelcome. It’s bad for an open dialogue on values.