Executive summary: The Light Cone Solution proposes a resolution to the Transmitter Room Problem by asserting that the universe’s finiteness imposes limits on the aggregation of mild discomfort, ensuring that extreme suffering of an individual should take priority over collective but minor distress.
Key points:
Biting the Bullet Approach: Some argue that extreme suffering can be outweighed by the aggregate discomfort of a vast number of individuals, though this is counterintuitive and relies on our difficulty grasping large numbers.
Infinite Disutility Approach: This perspective suggests that extreme suffering has infinite negative utility, making it impossible to be counterbalanced by any finite aggregation of minor discomfort, though it raises issues like treating one and two extreme cases as equally bad.
The Light Cone Solution: This approach assumes a finite observable universe, ensuring that even an arbitrarily large audience remains finite, meaning extreme suffering can still be assigned sufficiently negative finite utility to outweigh dispersed mild discomfort.
Implications for Effective Altruism: The solution suggests that prioritizing the avoidance of extreme suffering may be a more immediate moral imperative compared to ensuring a valuable long-term future.
Unresolved Questions: The argument depends on the assumption that sentient beings remain finite in number over time, raising questions about the universe’s future habitability and whether suffering should take priority over future-oriented existential risks.
Call for Further Discussion: The post invites input on whether this resolution has been discussed elsewhere and welcomes alternative perspectives on balancing extreme suffering against dispersed minor discomfort.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.
Executive summary: The Light Cone Solution proposes a resolution to the Transmitter Room Problem by asserting that the universe’s finiteness imposes limits on the aggregation of mild discomfort, ensuring that extreme suffering of an individual should take priority over collective but minor distress.
Key points:
Biting the Bullet Approach: Some argue that extreme suffering can be outweighed by the aggregate discomfort of a vast number of individuals, though this is counterintuitive and relies on our difficulty grasping large numbers.
Infinite Disutility Approach: This perspective suggests that extreme suffering has infinite negative utility, making it impossible to be counterbalanced by any finite aggregation of minor discomfort, though it raises issues like treating one and two extreme cases as equally bad.
The Light Cone Solution: This approach assumes a finite observable universe, ensuring that even an arbitrarily large audience remains finite, meaning extreme suffering can still be assigned sufficiently negative finite utility to outweigh dispersed mild discomfort.
Implications for Effective Altruism: The solution suggests that prioritizing the avoidance of extreme suffering may be a more immediate moral imperative compared to ensuring a valuable long-term future.
Unresolved Questions: The argument depends on the assumption that sentient beings remain finite in number over time, raising questions about the universe’s future habitability and whether suffering should take priority over future-oriented existential risks.
Call for Further Discussion: The post invites input on whether this resolution has been discussed elsewhere and welcomes alternative perspectives on balancing extreme suffering against dispersed minor discomfort.
This comment was auto-generated by the EA Forum Team. Feel free to point out issues with this summary by replying to the comment, and contact us if you have feedback.