Hacker News Reader

>The amount of misery under "capitalism" says there's got to be a better way.

I'm not quite sure why people think that a misery free world ought to be possible and/or the default.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Obviously we should try to reduce misery when we can. There's no lack of it on this planet

I'm OK with accepting a certain amount of it. It's a thing. Is there a configuration under which there is no misery? What's the minimum possible amount of misery we could hope to achieve? My problem is that when people's thinking tends to go along the lines of "misery is bad therefore we must eliminate all of it" they come to conclusions that are counterproductive because they're trying to break the laws of physics.

If I came to a ludicrous conclusion, like we should eat babies because that would reduce misery, then attack that ludicrous conclusion. But being pro-misery because some people make bad conclusions from being against misery is, well, ludicrous.

>But being pro-misery because some people make bad conclusions from being against misery is, well, ludicrous

Well, it's not obvious that it is, and you haven't made an actual argument here.

You mean like the longtermists who assume the vast majority of people will live inside a computer simulation?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com