Well, I posted the same argument in January. Unfortunately (?) with a bunch of other more novel ideas and without plots and (trivial) bits of calculus. Unfortunately (?) I did not make the bold claim the paradox is resolved or dissolved, but just the claim In the real world we are always resource constrained and the question must be “what is the best population given the limited resources”, therefore the paradox is resolved for most practical purposes.
If a moral hypothesis gives the wrong answers on some questions that we don’t face, that suggests it also gives the wrong answers on some questions that we do face.
Well, I posted the same argument in January. Unfortunately (?) with a bunch of other more novel ideas and without plots and (trivial) bits of calculus. Unfortunately (?) I did not make the bold claim the paradox is resolved or dissolved, but just the claim In the real world we are always resource constrained and the question must be “what is the best population given the limited resources”, therefore the paradox is resolved for most practical purposes.
I remember reading it, and getting lost. Looked through it again, still lost. Maybe it’s the style, or the presentation, not sure.
If a moral hypothesis gives the wrong answers on some questions that we don’t face, that suggests it also gives the wrong answers on some questions that we do face.