Sorted by New


GiveWell's Charity Recommendations Require Taking a Controversial Stance on Population Ethics

Even so, the suffering of birth, death and perhaps of being an inarticulate infant can be high enough to make it net-negative for the primary individual. It can even be high enough to outweigh 35 average human life-years if it is severe enough and/or the average experience value of one life-year is low enough or negative.

Even if this isn't true for the majority, it can still be true for the average, e.g. if 1% of life-years contain unusual suffering 100 times as severe as 1 life-year is good.

Why Poverty?

Standards of living even in Saudi Arabia

I'm sure the people whose skin is whipped to bloody shreds are very happy that their tormentors enjoy a high GDP.

A new, fiery religion could appear.

Most religions have historical roots, which are culturally perpetuated. Perhaps new cults can emerge, one might also fear the risk of new brainwashing technology. But why speculate about new religious fundamentalism when the old ones are alive and kicking?

odds <1% of sweeping cultural change

No one said anything about odds this low. They are far higher.

P.S.: A big fuck you to the people who downvoted my comment below visibility AFTER I pointed out the danger of stifling criticism in the name of PC; people like you are the reason why those girls in Rotherham could get raped without their molestors having to fear punishment.

The Poor Meat Investor Problem

it's in the best interests of the children who are being sent to school.

No, but it makes them more useful for economic exploitation by the rich and the politicians in their pockets.

Pretending it's for the children's own good just sounds nicer.

Why Poverty?

Eliminating poverty only works if poor people don't exist. If you want to save lives, as is often said, then eliminating poverty implies preventing reproduction. Otherwise, standard malthusian logic applies.

How are you going to make sure their reproduction will be below replacement? What guarantee do you have that there are no natalist religious cultures which won't undergo such a fertility transition with increasing wealth? It seems those cultures are among the worst for welfare, e.g. Islam in its various anti-liberty and pro-suffering variations.

To the people who downvote us here (or perhaps just one guy with 2 accounts):

Feel free to provide actual constructive criticism. Or solve the problem of global poverty, child mortality, and animal suffering on your own.

There could also be some overlap in helping developing countries reduce their birth rates, e.g. contracepitve availability, young female education, etc. This could increase per capita gdp, decrease child mortality and improve other metrics, without increasing total meat consumption exponentially. Perhaps this could be more of a focus area in EA.

It's also generally agrees that there's not much reason to expect that there to be a lot of suffering animals in the long run, compared to the amount of animal flourishing, if we're able to travel to new planets, make synthetic meats, create awesome entertainment and scientific experiments without their use, et cetera.

This is not a consensus. Most people don't care about suffering in nature or equivalent ecosystems. There is also no consensus that we should outlaw animal use even if we invent fully functional substitutes.

I personally think it's naive to expect more flourishing than suffering even in humans. Just because a culture is technologically advanced doesn't mean they won't torture the defenseless on a large scale. I expect this to happen to humans and posthumans frequently. There is nothing in the universe that will prevent this.

That would increase animal suffering. We want to decrease it.

Load More