2016-present Göttingen: 2017-present BSc mathematics 2021-present BSc economis 2021-present MSc statistics 2016-2020 BSc information management 2017-2019 Teaching assistant 2018-2019 Web developer Bargat.org 2019-2020 Helsinki Erasmus 2020-2021 internship Data Science Tweag.io Paris 2017-present EA local group organisor, fellowship moderator
Arne
Karma: 63
And thank you as well for the short, but helpful answer. The relevance of the thought of mine for philosophy gives also confidence to that thinking.
Btw we have a some friends in common of which I am aware: EdoArad → (Shay ben moshe) → Amit → Arne
^^
Thank you very much, you put it words, what I could not. Your answer gave me not only the assurance that my doubts were justified, but also some confidence to ask more questions of that kind.Thank you.
Dear forum,
I was wondering if the repugnant conclusion could be responded by an argument of the following form:
Considering planet earth and a given happiness distribution of its citizens with total happiness h, there is simply not enough space or resources or whatsoever to let an arbitrary large number of people n live with an average amount of happiness epsilon, such that n * epsilon > h. At even larger scales, the observable universe is finite and thus for the same reason as above n does not need to exist.
What do you think of such an argument?
I am not sure, whether the nature of the repugnant conclusion is really affected by such an argument. Can you help me to understand?
Yup, through effectivethesis precisely