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
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.
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
^^
Yup, through effectivethesis precisely
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?