• Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That’s the same flawed logic as longtermists use.

    • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.

      • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s the other side of the same coin. They both argue about the well-being/bad-being of hypothetical humans. It’s bogus, either way.

        • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.

          • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            4 months ago

            Longtermists try to justify their actions by invoking potential, future generations. Those don’t exist either.

            • retrieval4558@mander.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              4 months ago

              They’re presuming that people will exist, which is not a wild assumption

              But that’s not a philosophy I particularly subscribe to so I don’t feel compelled to explain or defend it further.

        • F04118F@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with “person-affecting views”? It’s admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn’t seem less problematic to me.

                • F04118F@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 months ago

                  I’m not sure if I should feel sad for you, or envious. To be so certain of your own point of view and take pride in not taking other ideas seriously. It must give some sense of calm but at the same time, you miss out on so much. I won’t ask or recommend you anything though, I read the thing. Enjoy your wall staring. Let’s hope it will make the world a better place.

                  • Prunebutt@slrpnk.net
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 months ago

                    Dude, get off your high horse. If I read every little thing some rando on the internet threw at me, I would never leave the toilet!

                    I don’t find these EA thought experiments interesting. That’s no reason to try to shame me for it.

                    I made a decision, please respect that.