[COAGULOPATH]

> In 1920, there were 25 million horses in the United States, 25 million horses totally ambivalent to two hundred years of progress in mechanical engines.

But would you rather be a horse in 1920 or 2020? Wouldn't you rather have modern medicine, better animal welfare laws, less exposure to accidents, and so on?

The only way horses conceivably have it worse is that there are fewer of them (a kind of "repugnant conclusion")...but what does that matter to an individual horse? No human regards it as a tragedy that there are only 9 billion of us instead of 90 billion. We care more about the welfare of the 9 billion.

[BeefySwain]

The equivalency here is not 9 billion versus 90 billion, it's 9 billion versus 90 million, and the question is how does the decline look? Does it look like the standard of living for everyone increasing so high that the replacement rate is in the single digit percentage range, or does it look like some version of Elysium where millions have immense wealth and billions have nothing and die off?

[schoen]

> No human regards it as a tragedy that there are only 9 billion of us instead of 90 billion.

I have met some transhumanists and longtermists who would really like to see some orders of magnitude increase in the human population. Maybe they wouldn't say "tragedy", but they might say "burning imperative".

I also don't think it's clearly better for more beings to exist rather than fewer, but I just want to assure you that the full range of takes on population ethics definitely exists, and it's not simply a matter of straightforward common sense how many people (or horses) there ought to be.