The type of people who build fallout and other fortified shelters intuitively assign a rather high prior to at least one of the scenarios in which such a shelter is very useful unfolding in the near time frame, such as a few decades. This is far from the mainstream, but so is a similar time-frame estimate of cryonic revival or the Singularity, which are taken quite seriously here. If you give, say, 50-50 odds for a global disaster happening within 20 years or so, building a shelter becomes pretty rational. and the extra expense of making it radiation-resistant is probably small enough to be worth absorbing.
As for the “life will not be worth living” argument, having a shelter may make a difference between propagating your genes or perishing, and I suspect that the perceived importance of survival of one’s bloodline correlates with other survivalist traits.
The type of people who build fallout and other fortified shelters intuitively assign a rather high prior to at least one of the scenarios in which such a shelter is very useful unfolding in the near time frame, such as a few decades.
Right. I argue that even if you do anticipate this, more utility is likely captured by attempting to decrease the odds of such scenarios occurring than by attempting to protect yourself (and perhaps a few friends/family) from their effects.
As for the “life will not be worth living” argument, having a shelter may make a difference between propagating your genes or perishing, and I suspect that the perceived importance of survival of one’s bloodline correlates with other survivalist traits.
That seems plausible, though I’ll point out that many common antinatalist arguments seem much stronger in a postapocalyptic setting.
It is also possible that people who subscribe to survivalist views derive less utility (both perceived and actual) from modern amenities, and would therefore have their utility reduced less in a post-apocalyptic setting than your average middle-class city-dweller.
There’s also the happiness caused by imagining oneself being well-off compared to the rest of society, whether that means someone buying a lottery ticket to live like a king among commoners, or someone building a fallout shelter to live like a commoner among wretches; it’s essentially the same wish, but the disaster scenario is actually statistically much more likely. So wouldn’t building a fallout shelter be more rational than buying a lottery ticket?
Would the best way be, then, to scale the effort as resources allow? Learning to make your own fire is much cheaper than building a fallout shelter—next in line might be a survival kit (including matches, lighter, and flint, in case you find that you are incompetent at producing fire—like me). I’ve grown the opinion that all people should have a basic survival skill-set; it would be pitiful to have to rediscover animal trapping and such.
I guess it might depend on the apocalypse, but could you provide an example?
Sure. The most basic antinatalist argument is that creating a new human life on average creates more disutility (in the form of human suffering) than it creates utility (in the form of human happiness). Whether or not you accept this argument depends on what you think the prospects of suffering and happiness are for the average human life.
At present, I view human lives as involving potentially very high gains. Nuclear war would not only stop the potential for many such gains, but it would likely halt or reverse gains that have already been made. For instance, absence of access to modern medical techniques, dentistry, painkillers, etc. would likely create substantial suffering.
On the plus side, it would also make life shorter, but I have a feeling that would be cold comfort—at least to non-antinatalists!
The View from Hell provides a solid overview of a lot of antinatalist thought if you’re interested in learning more.
It would create more suffering per human life, sure, but I don’t see how it could be enough that I start endorsing antinatalism. Then again, I’m not sure where exactly the line falls in any case; and allowing humanity to go extinct seems like it would bring such vast disutility I’m not sure any amount of suffering could outweigh it (unless there are other sentient beings available or something.)
er, it’s not anything about the “perceived importance of survival of one’s bloodline”—it’s about rebuilding civilization and trying again at the Singularity, and hopefully preserving as many people, cryonics patients, or whatever we best can, through the rough times. In a very worst-case scenario, reproduction could be a useful way to help carry on that mission beyond your own personal capabilities (which it already is in some ways).
The type of people who build fallout and other fortified shelters intuitively assign a rather high prior to at least one of the scenarios in which such a shelter is very useful unfolding in the near time frame, such as a few decades. This is far from the mainstream, but so is a similar time-frame estimate of cryonic revival or the Singularity, which are taken quite seriously here. If you give, say, 50-50 odds for a global disaster happening within 20 years or so, building a shelter becomes pretty rational. and the extra expense of making it radiation-resistant is probably small enough to be worth absorbing.
As for the “life will not be worth living” argument, having a shelter may make a difference between propagating your genes or perishing, and I suspect that the perceived importance of survival of one’s bloodline correlates with other survivalist traits.
Right. I argue that even if you do anticipate this, more utility is likely captured by attempting to decrease the odds of such scenarios occurring than by attempting to protect yourself (and perhaps a few friends/family) from their effects.
That seems plausible, though I’ll point out that many common antinatalist arguments seem much stronger in a postapocalyptic setting.
It is also possible that people who subscribe to survivalist views derive less utility (both perceived and actual) from modern amenities, and would therefore have their utility reduced less in a post-apocalyptic setting than your average middle-class city-dweller.
There’s also the happiness caused by imagining oneself being well-off compared to the rest of society, whether that means someone buying a lottery ticket to live like a king among commoners, or someone building a fallout shelter to live like a commoner among wretches; it’s essentially the same wish, but the disaster scenario is actually statistically much more likely. So wouldn’t building a fallout shelter be more rational than buying a lottery ticket?
It would be if it weren’t so much more expensive.
Would the best way be, then, to scale the effort as resources allow? Learning to make your own fire is much cheaper than building a fallout shelter—next in line might be a survival kit (including matches, lighter, and flint, in case you find that you are incompetent at producing fire—like me). I’ve grown the opinion that all people should have a basic survival skill-set; it would be pitiful to have to rediscover animal trapping and such.
I guess it might depend on the apocalypse, but could you provide an example?
Full disclosure: I am more skeptical of antinatalism then LW norm.
Sure. The most basic antinatalist argument is that creating a new human life on average creates more disutility (in the form of human suffering) than it creates utility (in the form of human happiness). Whether or not you accept this argument depends on what you think the prospects of suffering and happiness are for the average human life.
At present, I view human lives as involving potentially very high gains. Nuclear war would not only stop the potential for many such gains, but it would likely halt or reverse gains that have already been made. For instance, absence of access to modern medical techniques, dentistry, painkillers, etc. would likely create substantial suffering.
On the plus side, it would also make life shorter, but I have a feeling that would be cold comfort—at least to non-antinatalists!
The View from Hell provides a solid overview of a lot of antinatalist thought if you’re interested in learning more.
It would create more suffering per human life, sure, but I don’t see how it could be enough that I start endorsing antinatalism. Then again, I’m not sure where exactly the line falls in any case; and allowing humanity to go extinct seems like it would bring such vast disutility I’m not sure any amount of suffering could outweigh it (unless there are other sentient beings available or something.)
er, it’s not anything about the “perceived importance of survival of one’s bloodline”—it’s about rebuilding civilization and trying again at the Singularity, and hopefully preserving as many people, cryonics patients, or whatever we best can, through the rough times. In a very worst-case scenario, reproduction could be a useful way to help carry on that mission beyond your own personal capabilities (which it already is in some ways).