||Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu>
||Sat, 28 Oct 2006 22:42:37 -0400 (EDT)
||Re: social welfare + fairness + knowledge
> How about "Ensuring that we have a stable and sustained habitat" ...
I would certainly include that under social welfare but it does point to
one of the many tricky things about maximizing social welfare -- deciding
how much to discount the future. In Yootopia (yootopia.org) we have so
far standardized on discounting the future at 5.375%, meaning that
happiness now is twice as important as happiness 13 years from now. That
sounds potentially environmentally dangerous but I don't think that such a
discount rate implies an optimal strategy of, say, ignoring global
warming. After all, even heavily discounted, the massive disutility of
environmental catastrophe will outweigh some short-term cost savings.
Meta-discussion: yes, Uluc, that was worth the attention of
improvetheworld. Conjecture: once a thread has been started it's little
burden to the group to have many people chime in with comments; to the
contrary, it makes it more discussion-y. Many different threads are what
can become overwhelming. Anyone disagree with that? (uh-oh, it's a
catch-22! if you disagree, you won't want to burden the group with a
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 00:06:34 +0300 (EEST)
To: Daniel Reeves
From: Uluc Saranli
Subject: Re: social welfare + fairness + knowledge
How about "Ensuring that we have a stable and sustained habitat", as in keeping
our planet alive or looking for new ones if the need arises. Of course, you
could lump that with social welfare, but somehow it seems a bit different.
Just a thought. You can decide whether it's worth the attention of
improvetheworld or not.
On Sat, 28 Oct 2006, Daniel Reeves wrote:
> Based on off-line discussion with my grandfather, I propose that there are
> only three fundamental principles worth fighting for in human society:
> 1. Social Welfare
> 2. Fairness
> 3. The Search for Knowledge
> (This started with an argument about the parental retort "who says life's
> supposed to be fair?")
> (1 and 2 are distinct because if we're all equally miserable, that's
> fair but not welfare maximizing. Likewise, of the methods for dividing
> a cake, for example, the method of "I get all of it" maximizes the sum
> of our utilities, but we nonetheless prefer splitting it in half.)
> Is there a number 4?
> http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves - - search://"Daniel Reeves"