Depopulation is Bad

I remain unconviced by the arguments in the book (based on this post). My main disagreement is that it assumes that the main downside of a larger population is climate change (which I don't think it is), and then goes on to focus exclusively on all the great things we could have with more people. Perhaps not surprisingly, I think this debate is not complete without bringing up the problem of extreme suffering:

More Good is Better. It’s better if there is more good in the world, other things being equal, and worse if there is less. That includes good lives: It’s better if there are more good lives.

The above begs the question. Sure, more good is better, but the book title is not "the case for happy people." Doubling the population would mean:

• 560 million people living with depression instead of 280 million.
• 1.4 million people committing suicide every year instead of 700k.
• Doubling the number of people being tortured in prison camps, living in totalitarian regimes, living in war zones, living with cluster headaches, etc.
• Doubling the consumption of chicken, fish, etc.

Maybe one could argue that growing the population would also help us fix all of the above faster, but I seriously doubt it (and it would seem to me more like an instance of suspicious convergence).

The book authors seem to be basically saying "wouldn't it be awesome to have more people like us? Healthy, wealthy, happy-go-lucky, living in a free democracy, and with such high IQ that we might invent the new vaccine?" (Sorry, this might be unfair, but that's at least the vibe I get from this post.) But I think we absolutely need to think about those living in agony too. Until then, I'm unconvinced.

Maybe less importantly (because it may be rather a matter of aesthetics), I'm also not moved much by the argument "aren't you glad to have more books, magazines, high-speed streaming, etc., and wouldn't it be great to have more of that?" There's something hungry ghost-y about it that goes against my striving to be content with less. Like, yes, I admit I really like vaccines, but maybe our goal should be "let's shift our societal priorities such that fewer people go on to become TV producers and instead become vaccine researchers."

Something similar applies to this:

Imagine that half the people you know and love never existed.

I think the thought experiment is trying to evoke a feeling of sadness at the thought of never having met half the people in your life, but to me it also implies that, right now, I should be sad that I don't have twice the friends I have. I reject this.

Anyway, I still appreciate the book summary and will be thinking about the topic more as a result. And I'm still open to changing my mind if there are other arguments related to the problem of extreme suffering.

Thanks! I think we probably agree much more than your comment suggests. I wholeheartedly agree with this, for example:

But better still would be "I would like more examples of what these budget numbers mean for our day to day operations" or "expert consensus is that people will pay more attention if you sound excited when you give a presentation". 

Those are the kinds of indisputable facts that I think should be used instead of judgments (no one can dispute that you would like more examples for the budget).

I think there's a caricature version of NVC in a lot people's minds where NVC is all about talking about feelings or something, in a way that feels insincere or naive. And perhaps justifiably so—I've seen people weaponize NVC to just mask their judgments behind a veil of seemingly nonviolent language, but their intentions are all too obvious, which often leads to even worse outcomes. So yeah, basically I'm fully on board with the idea of speaking/writing in a way that will most clearly convey meaning.

Nice, thanks for sharing this! I'd been thinking about this topic for a while. It seems like something for the EA Forum team to invest some resources into (maybe they already are).

Thanks! With "such as," I meant "among others." I agree that "makes me sad" wouldn't do the job here, but I think the other examples I mentioned would, no? ("I disagree", "I doubt", etc., which aren't really feelings but they're still not judgments).

(Very much agree with the "Featured in" point!)

I'd love to talk to people broadly interested in ways to reduce the burden of extreme suffering in humans, which I think is weirdly neglected in EA. The vast majority of global health & wellbeing work is based on DALY/QALY calculations (and, to a lesser extent, WELLBY), which I believe fail to capture the most severe forms of suffering. There's so much low-hanging fruit in this space, starting with just cataloguing the largest sources of extreme human suffering globally.

I'm eager to talk to potential collaborators, donors, and really anyone interested in the topic. :)

Here's my Swapcard.

Thank you so much, Wladimir! I admire the work that you and your team at the Welfare Footprint Institute are doing, so this means a lot coming from you!

Thank you so much, Dee! There might be a way for you to help—I'll get in touch in the coming weeks! :)

Thanks so much for your comment and your willingness to support these efforts! I'd be happy to chat and brainstorm ways for you to contribute. Just get in touch anytime (e.g. DM me here on the Forum). 🙂

In case it helps, I enhanced the audio of Rob Burbea's jhana retreat, which you can find here. :)