Repugnant conclusion
Imagine you are at a birthday party with all your friends. You and your friends have different types of cake in front of you, and you all want to have a piece of cake.
Now, the repugnant conclusion is an idea that says having more people in the world is good, but if we think about it really hard, having a lot of people in the world might mean we need to make some choices that could be really difficult and might not seem fair.
Here's an example: Imagine there are two worlds, World A and World B. World A has 100 people, and they are all really happy, healthy, and living a great life. World B has 1000 people, but they are not all as happy or healthy as the people in World A. In fact, some of them are really unhappy and struggling.
So, if you had to choose which world you would rather live in, you would probably choose World A, right?
But wait! There's more. Let's say you could make a new world, World C. In World C, there are 10,000 people, and they are all living happy, healthy lives.
So, which world would you pick now? World A, World B, or World C?
The repugnant conclusion says that if you think having more people is good, then you should pick World C because there are more happy people there than in any of the other worlds.
But here's where it gets tricky. In order to make World C, we might have to sacrifice some of the happiness and health of the people in World A and World B. We might have to take away some of their resources, or make them work harder or longer hours, just to make sure everyone in World C is happy and healthy.
So, even though it might seem like having more people in the world is a good thing, if we were forced to choose between making some people really happy and healthy, or making a lot of people just a little bit happy and healthy, it might not be the easiest choice to make.
In other words, the repugnant conclusion is a difficult idea that makes us think about what we value more: having a lot of people in the world, or making sure that everyone is happy and healthy.
Now, the repugnant conclusion is an idea that says having more people in the world is good, but if we think about it really hard, having a lot of people in the world might mean we need to make some choices that could be really difficult and might not seem fair.
Here's an example: Imagine there are two worlds, World A and World B. World A has 100 people, and they are all really happy, healthy, and living a great life. World B has 1000 people, but they are not all as happy or healthy as the people in World A. In fact, some of them are really unhappy and struggling.
So, if you had to choose which world you would rather live in, you would probably choose World A, right?
But wait! There's more. Let's say you could make a new world, World C. In World C, there are 10,000 people, and they are all living happy, healthy lives.
So, which world would you pick now? World A, World B, or World C?
The repugnant conclusion says that if you think having more people is good, then you should pick World C because there are more happy people there than in any of the other worlds.
But here's where it gets tricky. In order to make World C, we might have to sacrifice some of the happiness and health of the people in World A and World B. We might have to take away some of their resources, or make them work harder or longer hours, just to make sure everyone in World C is happy and healthy.
So, even though it might seem like having more people in the world is a good thing, if we were forced to choose between making some people really happy and healthy, or making a lot of people just a little bit happy and healthy, it might not be the easiest choice to make.
In other words, the repugnant conclusion is a difficult idea that makes us think about what we value more: having a lot of people in the world, or making sure that everyone is happy and healthy.
Related topics others have asked about: