I've been meaning to write up "fertility as a new EA cause area" for a while; I'm glad you scooped me on this!
One eye-opening article for me was https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-global-fertility-gap, where it turns out that fertility is shrinking quickly not just in developed countries, but developing ones like India too.
I also accept the repugnant conclusion. Using that as a counter-argument against population growth has struck me as pretty selfish- and I don't get why people think it's so compelling.
I think having a family is one of the best things that people regularly do.
I do find it frustrating when consequentialists argue for all kinds of unpopular things on grounds of total value, like long-termism, and imply common intuitions aren't persuasive, but then shy away from logical conclusions when it would violate their intuition.
(Not saying Scott Alexander presents himself as a strict EV maximizer or applies to him)
What about a framing where we think one living human-inhabited planet and one dead planet versus two thriving planets? In this case, the case with double population seems way better than the one planet scenario? Does it convey the more people=good idea better than a single, more populated world?
If ever there was an underserved EA cause, this is it.
I've been meaning to write up "fertility as a new EA cause area" for a while; I'm glad you scooped me on this!
One eye-opening article for me was https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-global-fertility-gap, where it turns out that fertility is shrinking quickly not just in developed countries, but developing ones like India too.
Yes, until recently I wasn't aware of how fast fertility was plunging everywhere!
See also the Population Wellbeing Initiative: https://sites.utexas.edu/pwi/. They're well-funded and working on similar issues. Consider reaching out.
Thanks, I was unaware of them.
I also accept the repugnant conclusion. Using that as a counter-argument against population growth has struck me as pretty selfish- and I don't get why people think it's so compelling.
I think having a family is one of the best things that people regularly do.
I do find it frustrating when consequentialists argue for all kinds of unpopular things on grounds of total value, like long-termism, and imply common intuitions aren't persuasive, but then shy away from logical conclusions when it would violate their intuition.
(Not saying Scott Alexander presents himself as a strict EV maximizer or applies to him)
What about a framing where we think one living human-inhabited planet and one dead planet versus two thriving planets? In this case, the case with double population seems way better than the one planet scenario? Does it convey the more people=good idea better than a single, more populated world?