Hi, I hope this doesn’t offend, but is this meant to be satire? I’m unclear if that’s the case (and I don’t think this post is well structured whether it’s meant to be satire or serious). If it’s not satire, I’ll engage more.
No offense taken. It’s a serious post, but I completely understand why people would assume otherwise. I can have a bit of an eccentric take on certain topics and I’m probably not the best at explaining my own views :).
If you have a recommendation on how to change the structure to make it look more serious, please tell me.
I agree with Sarthak. You seem to take a long time to get to your point.
Regarding the content of your post, you may be interested in reading up on population ethics. Your post basically maps onto the debate about whether we should adopt a person-affecting view of ethics.
I don’t think OP was going for the same idea as the debate over population ethics. The article wasn’t about future people that don’t currently exist but “might” exist as a result of our actions. Rather, it is about people living in worlds whose existence is causally disconnected from us, and logically impossible according to our current understanding of “existence”.
You’re right, I think I didn’t read carefully enough, and I pattern matched to the nearest sensible view.
Got it. I would recommend cutting this post down roughly in half—you take a while to get to the point (stating your thesis in roughly the 14th paragraph). I understand the desire to try and warn the audience for what is coming, but the first section until you get to the thesis just seems overwrought to me. I know cutting is hard, but I’m confident the rewards from increased clarity will be worth it.
I’ve added a summary. Thanks, this was the first time I wrote a post on this forum.
I liked the long introductory exposition, though I also agree with adding the summary.