Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> I'm always amazed when this argument is raised. I can't fathom anyone actually believes more life, for the sake of life, is "better". It strikes me as a bad faith argument. There is a colossal difference between ending a life and preventing one from happening.

There are indeed such people. Depending on your particular flavor of utilitarianism, it's a pretty reasonable to conclude that the best things you can do in your life are to A) ensure that there if more life in the future; and B) work to make sure that life is happier than present life.

It basically comes down to how much weight you place on two factors. The first factor is the weight of pleasure (aka happiness, contentment, joy, pick your favorite single word) vs suffering. The second is the weight of present vs future beings.

If you think pleasure outweighs suffering and you are future-oriented then the best possible world is achieved done by increasing the number of happy sentient beings in the universe.

If, OTOH, you believe, as I do, that the negatives of suffering are much stronger than the positives of happiness and you heavily discount future not-yet-existent beings, then you want to focus on eliminating suffering in the present and you should be fairly skeptical of future increases in sentient beings.



It is necessary to have wished for death in order to know how good it is to live. ;)




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: