Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.
I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)
The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.
Thanks for sharing. This is an example of why naive utilitarianism can be harmful. EA needs to more clearly adopt a framework with duties of care, and personal rights. I dare call it “common sense ethics”.
I would add that having children in the West is a huge net good on society, even if that means fewer shrimp have their welfare improved. (We can think about EY’s argument on hiccups here)
The economy is a positive sum game, meaning children add more than they take, and there simply would be no wealth to distribute otherwise. If we think on a long enough time horizon, the only way to improve everyone’s welfare significantly is by having more children in productive areas.