I remain unconviced by the arguments in the book (based on this post). My main disagreement is that it assumes that the main downside of a larger population is climate change (which I don’t think it is), and then goes on to focus exclusively on all the great things we could have with more people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I think this debate is not complete without bringing up the problem of extreme suffering:
More Good is Better. It’s better if there is more good in the world, other things being equal, and worse if there is less. That includes good lives: It’s better if there are more good lives.
The above begs the question. Sure, more good is better, but the book title is not “the case for happy people.” Doubling the population would mean:
560 million people living with depression instead of 280 million.
1.4 million people committing suicide every year instead of 700k.
Doubling the number of people being tortured in prison camps, living in totalitarian regimes, living in war zones, living with cluster headaches, etc.
Doubling the consumption of chicken, fish, etc.
Maybe one could argue that growing the population would also help us fix all of the above faster, but I seriously doubt it (and it would seem to me more like an instance of suspicious convergence).
The book authors seem to be basically saying “wouldn’t it be awesome to have more people like us? Healthy, wealthy, happy-go-lucky, living in a free democracy, and with such high IQ that we might invent a new vaccine?” (Sorry, this might be unfair, but that’s at least the vibe I get from this post.) But I think we absolutely need to think about those living in agony too. Until then, I’m unconvinced.
Maybe less importantly (because it may be rather a matter of aesthetics), I’m also not moved much by the argument “aren’t you glad to have more books, magazines, high-speed streaming, etc., and wouldn’t it be great to have more of that?” There’s something hungry ghost-y about it that goes against my striving to be content with less. Like, yes, I admit I really like vaccines, but maybe our goal should be “let’s shift our societal priorities such that fewer people go on to become TV producers and instead become vaccine researchers.”
Something similar applies to this:
Imagine that half the people you know and love never existed.
I think the thought experiment is trying to evoke a feeling of sadness at the thought of never having met half the people in your life, but to me it also implies that, right now, I should be sad that I don’t have twice the friends I have. I reject this implication.
Anyway, I still appreciate the book summary and will be thinking about the topic more as a result. And I’m still open to changing my mind if there are other arguments related to the problem of extreme suffering.
I remain unconviced by the arguments in the book (based on this post). My main disagreement is that it assumes that the main downside of a larger population is climate change (which I don’t think it is), and then goes on to focus exclusively on all the great things we could have with more people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I think this debate is not complete without bringing up the problem of extreme suffering:
The above begs the question. Sure, more good is better, but the book title is not “the case for happy people.” Doubling the population would mean:
560 million people living with depression instead of 280 million.
1.4 million people committing suicide every year instead of 700k.
Doubling the number of people being tortured in prison camps, living in totalitarian regimes, living in war zones, living with cluster headaches, etc.
Doubling the consumption of chicken, fish, etc.
Maybe one could argue that growing the population would also help us fix all of the above faster, but I seriously doubt it (and it would seem to me more like an instance of suspicious convergence).
The book authors seem to be basically saying “wouldn’t it be awesome to have more people like us? Healthy, wealthy, happy-go-lucky, living in a free democracy, and with such high IQ that we might invent a new vaccine?” (Sorry, this might be unfair, but that’s at least the vibe I get from this post.) But I think we absolutely need to think about those living in agony too. Until then, I’m unconvinced.
Maybe less importantly (because it may be rather a matter of aesthetics), I’m also not moved much by the argument “aren’t you glad to have more books, magazines, high-speed streaming, etc., and wouldn’t it be great to have more of that?” There’s something hungry ghost-y about it that goes against my striving to be content with less. Like, yes, I admit I really like vaccines, but maybe our goal should be “let’s shift our societal priorities such that fewer people go on to become TV producers and instead become vaccine researchers.”
Something similar applies to this:
I think the thought experiment is trying to evoke a feeling of sadness at the thought of never having met half the people in your life, but to me it also implies that, right now, I should be sad that I don’t have twice the friends I have. I reject this implication.
Anyway, I still appreciate the book summary and will be thinking about the topic more as a result. And I’m still open to changing my mind if there are other arguments related to the problem of extreme suffering.