|
|
|
|
|
|
by tjic
3025 days ago
|
|
|
There is a an issue in all statistics: "the seen and the unseen". It basically means "measuring benefits but not measuring costs". Even if the statistics is accurate. Even if denying people the right to self-determination is a positive in your ethical system. Even if X, Y, Z are true... I still have to ask: what about the COST? Pesticides exist because they do something useful - kill off pests. They increase food production and decrease labor. What if we've saved some lives...but also made 200,000 farmers each spend an extra five hours a week bent over in their fields, picking bugs off leaves? Or made them plant more land in order to harvest the same amount of food? |
|
|
You are not denying people right to self-determination, in any way. If someone really wants to have a suicide method handy so that they can commit suicide immediately when they feel the impulse, you can buy it ahead of the time.
> What if we've saved some lives...but also made 200,000 farmers each spend an extra five hours a week bent over in their fields, picking bugs off leaves? Or made them plant more land in order to harvest the same amount of food?
Do you have any reason to think any of that is true? If you have to go to a specialist shop to buy pesticide instead of the grocery store where it's right next to your food; or if you have to use pesticide that's slightly more expensive but not toxic to humans, suddenly it's like you need to pick bugs off leaves?
Measuring costs is a fine idea; and 80000 hours definitely do that. Making up costs just to seem contrary is something completely different.