But consider what happens next: the population of the island will stabilize, and then over years and generations, they will get better at making food and material wealth.
Hmm. How sure are you of that? It seems more likely that the population will fall too far, then grow too far, in a cycle that may or may not support average improvements in food and wealth that make each cycle somewhat larger (or maybe, but not guaranteed, tamps down the amplitude to closer to a smooth increase).
we will soon live in a world of nine or ten billion people, very few or none of them in deep poverty
I’m halfway-agreed. There will probably be no major population decrease, but I suspect and fear that the disparity between rich and poor (fractally and relatively, both within industrialized regions and compared across continents and nations) is going to get much greater. There will be many in “deep” poverty, even though the depth is arguable (mostly argued among elites and the rich), who will not get the benefit of the incredible art, Mars exploration, or abundant energy that the minority (still billions, but nowhere near universal) of humans enjoy.
I don’t have an opinion on whether this is a better outcome than half as many people, with somewhat less of a top achievement (maybe not on Mars yet) much less disparity in wealth and satisfaction. But that’s the question of the Repugnant conclusion. It’s easy to reformulate as “worst lives” instead of “average lives”. Which is still Malthusian in nature. I’d argue it’s not “smuggled in”, but central to the question of what’s a better population size.
Hmm. How sure are you of that? It seems more likely that the population will fall too far, then grow too far, in a cycle that may or may not support average improvements in food and wealth that make each cycle somewhat larger (or maybe, but not guaranteed, tamps down the amplitude to closer to a smooth increase).
I’m halfway-agreed. There will probably be no major population decrease, but I suspect and fear that the disparity between rich and poor (fractally and relatively, both within industrialized regions and compared across continents and nations) is going to get much greater. There will be many in “deep” poverty, even though the depth is arguable (mostly argued among elites and the rich), who will not get the benefit of the incredible art, Mars exploration, or abundant energy that the minority (still billions, but nowhere near universal) of humans enjoy.
I don’t have an opinion on whether this is a better outcome than half as many people, with somewhat less of a top achievement (maybe not on Mars yet) much less disparity in wealth and satisfaction. But that’s the question of the Repugnant conclusion. It’s easy to reformulate as “worst lives” instead of “average lives”. Which is still Malthusian in nature. I’d argue it’s not “smuggled in”, but central to the question of what’s a better population size.