https://t-head.livejournal.com/ ([identity profile] t-head.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] sophiaserpentia 2004-02-26 03:00 pm (UTC)

First, let's pretend I'm Spinoza. And that a quasi-mathematical ethics proof is not entirely preposterous prima faciae.

Let N be the net effect of existence of a longevous person on an entity's wellbeing.
Thence,
... N(p) = effect of the longevous person on themselves, by dint of their longevity
... N(!p) = effect of the longevous person on the non-longevous
... N(e) = effect of a longevous person on the environment, minus the effect they would have had they normal lifetimes.

Let k be the ratio in which the treatment extends a person's life and L be the ratio of people who undergo longevity treatment.

Then, the net gain/loss of wellbeing on a society of mixed longevity (S) of a given size R would be

S ~= R * ( k * L * ( N(p) + N(e) ) + ( (1-L) * N(!p) )

From which we can state that a affirmative effect can only be obtained if

- BOTH the N terms (N(e)) being most likely negative) are positive OR
- only N(p) is positive but L is sufficiently small AND k is sufficently large

In plain English, longevity is good if BOTH the methuselah better themselves AND make things better for non-methuselah. It's also acceptable if the methuselah live long enough so that their own added well-being outpaces the loss of well-being they cause others AND the ammount of methuselah is kept small.

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting