@drethelin @WrongBotWrites isn't the Repugnant Conclusion basically "we trade off # of ppl and QOL of those ppl, there is an optimal point"?
-
-
Replying to @ozymandias314
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites I'm not sure it's about a tradeoff per se. Would apply even if the # of ppl had no effect on QOL.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@drethelin @WrongBotWrites So perhaps "if there is a tradeoff btwn # of ppl and QOL, we shouldn't go for max QOL/min ppl"?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ozymandias314
@simplic10@drethelin @WrongBotWrites I feel like when there isn't a tradeoff it's an easier case.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ozymandias314
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites If no tradeoff, would be good to make squillions with lives "just barely above the suicide line".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites (Better to make them happier, but this act still good.)2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@simplic10@drethelin @WrongBotWrites And the fact that you chose to make them all live just above the suicide line is not max utility.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ozymandias314
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites I might be confused here. I think mixup is between "no tradeoff" vs "no effect of pop on QOL".1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites If ppl get less happy the more ppl there are, then there is an optimal population.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @simplic10
@ozymandias314@drethelin @WrongBotWrites But if making 1 happy psn costs same RESOURCES as making 50 just above suicide, should do latter.4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
@simplic10 @ozymandias314 @drethelin @WrongBotWrites "just above suicide" is way worse than "barely worth living"
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.