Someone pointed out to me that long-term considerations dominate population ethics. So even if one places intrinsic value on population changes, the calculation might be dominated by how these changes affect the survival of humanity. Population increases may destabilize humanity due to competition for scarce resources. On the other hand, they may decrease the probability that every last human will die.
That might be true of short-term population ethics, but conversely, in the long run most of the value of colonizing the galaxy (etc.) will come from the higher population it could support—unless you’re an average-utilitarian, in which case it is much less valuable.
Someone pointed out to me that long-term considerations dominate population ethics. So even if one places intrinsic value on population changes, the calculation might be dominated by how these changes affect the survival of humanity. Population increases may destabilize humanity due to competition for scarce resources. On the other hand, they may decrease the probability that every last human will die.
That might be true of short-term population ethics, but conversely, in the long run most of the value of colonizing the galaxy (etc.) will come from the higher population it could support—unless you’re an average-utilitarian, in which case it is much less valuable.
That’s what I was saying. The potential long-term population outweighs the effects of short-term population.