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.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-affecting_view
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”.
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. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person-affecting_view
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.