I’m not saying Ishtar’s life isn’t worth living, just that it’s tragic that so many also worthwhile lives are being prevented from existing so that she can play her silly games.
Also, it isn’t productive, it is consumptive. She is simply consuming resources provided by others.
Right. My point was that you view it as “her silly games”, but they might be precisely what make her life worth living. One might just as well say “It’s tragic that so many silly lives exist so that Ishtar cannot live her worthwhile life”.
Not so much a “Who are you to say” style rejection, as much as noting that it’s not obvious, math or no math.
Ok, so would you prefer to pop all but 7 humans out of existence (assume that the process is painless) in exchange for the remaining humans experiencing Ishtar level happiness?
If you just mean to say that terminal values are arbitrary, so some possible minds might prefer the Ishtar scenario, then that’s fine, so far as it goes. But if you take multiplication seriously, then its insanely hard to make the case for this being a genuine eutopia.
You seem to be forgetting the old adage “Shut up and don’t multiply by a count unless it is a count of something that you value linearly with said count”. Very few people value the existence of Hansonian Hell-bots in direct proportion to the number of Hell-bots that are ‘alive’. Of those that do it isn’t clear that they value the existence of these creatures in that condition positively. So taking things ‘seriously’ here is more to do with what preferences people have than it is about ‘multiplication’.
A lot of people live at subsistence levels. They aren’t much less happy than you or me on average. Their lives are very well worth living by their own standards. And they would likely be better adapted to their environment than we are, so there’s good reason to believe they would be better of than 1st worlders are now. And the denizens of this alleged eutopia don’t seem much happier than some people I know now.
And as long as we’re focusing on the preferences of people in the world now, how many of them do you think would approve of the implicit AI autocracy, reproductive central-planning, and hedonism of this world?
This is a dream-world for nerdy/polyamorous/transhumanist folks common on LW but rare everywhere else (except maybe reddit).
I do not think the parent is so obviously wrong to be worth being downvoted to −4 without even mentioning what’s wrong with it. (I actually agree with much of it. There was even a Robin Hanson post about the fact that “the poor also smile” (can’t link to it because Overcoming Bias is blacked out today).
I downvoted the grandparent for making unintuitive claims about the money:happiness relation without presenting evidence (my understanding is that subsistence-level income does have a significant and negative effect on happiness, although the plot of happiness over income levels off quickly after a basic level of financial security is achieved), for making sketchy claims about adaptation without evidence, for conflating approval with preference (particularly glaring because the point about happiness/income above only works without conflating the two), and for the entirely unnecessary swipe at perceived LW norms in the last sentence.
Oh, and by way of disclaimer, I didn’t find the original story especially compelling as a vision of utopia.
Isn’t it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren’t instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives? (Or, well, more tragic, since it’s actually real?)
Isn’t it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren’t instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives?
My argument isn’t that each life which might have been is more valuable, but that they are when added up.
First of all, uploads aren’t yet possible, so far fewer lives worth living could be supported with your resources in the first place. More importantly, since most resources aren’t being centrally distributed by all-powerful machine gods, we would have to tax your earnings. This involves the infamous “leaky buckets” problem acknowledged by all utilitarians. People engage in tax avoidance behaviors, work fewer hours, hide income, and some money which is captured is spent on overhead. These problems don’t exist when all resources are being created and distributed by a central depot.
Furthermore, the ability to actually get those resources to the people in need are in doubt, due to grabby governments/warlords/logistical problems etc.
But yes, overall I would say it is tragic that some of our 1st-World resources aren’t going to save marginal lives.
But yes, overall I would say it is tragic that some of our 1st-World resources aren’t going to save marginal lives.
I don’t think this is the alternative he was proposing. I think the more relevant analogy would be our 1st-World resources going to produce extra marginal barely-worth-living lives in the third world.
I guess one person’s tacky IRL video game is another’s worthwhile productive life.
I’m not saying Ishtar’s life isn’t worth living, just that it’s tragic that so many also worthwhile lives are being prevented from existing so that she can play her silly games.
Also, it isn’t productive, it is consumptive. She is simply consuming resources provided by others.
Right. My point was that you view it as “her silly games”, but they might be precisely what make her life worth living. One might just as well say “It’s tragic that so many silly lives exist so that Ishtar cannot live her worthwhile life”.
Not so much a “Who are you to say” style rejection, as much as noting that it’s not obvious, math or no math.
Ok, so would you prefer to pop all but 7 humans out of existence (assume that the process is painless) in exchange for the remaining humans experiencing Ishtar level happiness?
If you just mean to say that terminal values are arbitrary, so some possible minds might prefer the Ishtar scenario, then that’s fine, so far as it goes. But if you take multiplication seriously, then its insanely hard to make the case for this being a genuine eutopia.
You seem to be forgetting the old adage “Shut up and don’t multiply by a count unless it is a count of something that you value linearly with said count”. Very few people value the existence of Hansonian Hell-bots in direct proportion to the number of Hell-bots that are ‘alive’. Of those that do it isn’t clear that they value the existence of these creatures in that condition positively. So taking things ‘seriously’ here is more to do with what preferences people have than it is about ‘multiplication’.
A lot of people live at subsistence levels. They aren’t much less happy than you or me on average. Their lives are very well worth living by their own standards. And they would likely be better adapted to their environment than we are, so there’s good reason to believe they would be better of than 1st worlders are now. And the denizens of this alleged eutopia don’t seem much happier than some people I know now.
And as long as we’re focusing on the preferences of people in the world now, how many of them do you think would approve of the implicit AI autocracy, reproductive central-planning, and hedonism of this world?
This is a dream-world for nerdy/polyamorous/transhumanist folks common on LW but rare everywhere else (except maybe reddit).
I do not think the parent is so obviously wrong to be worth being downvoted to −4 without even mentioning what’s wrong with it. (I actually agree with much of it. There was even a Robin Hanson post about the fact that “the poor also smile” (can’t link to it because Overcoming Bias is blacked out today).
I downvoted the grandparent for making unintuitive claims about the money:happiness relation without presenting evidence (my understanding is that subsistence-level income does have a significant and negative effect on happiness, although the plot of happiness over income levels off quickly after a basic level of financial security is achieved), for making sketchy claims about adaptation without evidence, for conflating approval with preference (particularly glaring because the point about happiness/income above only works without conflating the two), and for the entirely unnecessary swipe at perceived LW norms in the last sentence.
Oh, and by way of disclaimer, I didn’t find the original story especially compelling as a vision of utopia.
Isn’t it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren’t instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives? (Or, well, more tragic, since it’s actually real?)
Isn’t it equally tragic that in the real world the resources that are currently maintaining my life aren’t instead being used to support other, more worthwhile, lives?
My argument isn’t that each life which might have been is more valuable, but that they are when added up.
First of all, uploads aren’t yet possible, so far fewer lives worth living could be supported with your resources in the first place. More importantly, since most resources aren’t being centrally distributed by all-powerful machine gods, we would have to tax your earnings. This involves the infamous “leaky buckets” problem acknowledged by all utilitarians. People engage in tax avoidance behaviors, work fewer hours, hide income, and some money which is captured is spent on overhead. These problems don’t exist when all resources are being created and distributed by a central depot.
Furthermore, the ability to actually get those resources to the people in need are in doubt, due to grabby governments/warlords/logistical problems etc.
But yes, overall I would say it is tragic that some of our 1st-World resources aren’t going to save marginal lives.
I don’t think this is the alternative he was proposing. I think the more relevant analogy would be our 1st-World resources going to produce extra marginal barely-worth-living lives in the third world.