this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2024
42 points (88.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43395 readers
1293 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- [email protected]: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
There's a philosophical paradox about this called the "repugnant conclusion". Technically, it's supposed to be about humans, not horses, but the logic is the same.
The main conclusion was that it's better to have a larger population that's worse off than a smaller one that's better off because it's better to exist than not exist.
Personally, I think the opposite is true, but there's not a "right" answer.
I mean, that's a pretty big assumption...and I'm not sure I agree with it!
Sum benefit of the world. For you today, you're still here so I assume you prefer to exist. How bad would things have to be before you prefer not to exist? That is your personal value of existence. Now apply that concept to everyone on earth.
Thinking about others is not the same math. I would rather have fewer people and better quality of life if I was still here but that is not a fair assessment because every person feels that way and most of us still want to be here.