The article seems to assume that happiness is quantifiable and a limited resource. It is difficult to say that that is what is really meant since it promotes a conclusion without the axioms and reasoning required to get there. If that is indeed the view being espoused those assumptions do not jive with my observations. On the contrary, happiness seems to be gestalt, as long as there isn't a scarcity of resources or opportunity.
The author then makes an association with people not being born due to population normalization (which ties in to scarcity of resources). Such a connection is well, non-existent really, but aside from that it is also ludicrously framed and possibly ludicrous in any philosophical framework.
The article seems to assume that happiness is quantifiable and a limited resource. It is difficult to say that that is what is really meant since it promotes a conclusion without the axioms and reasoning required to get there. If that is indeed the view being espoused those assumptions do not jive with my observations. On the contrary, happiness seems to be gestalt, as long as there isn't a scarcity of resources or opportunity.
The author then makes an association with people not being born due to population normalization (which ties in to scarcity of resources). Such a connection is well, non-existent really, but aside from that it is also ludicrously framed and possibly ludicrous in any philosophical framework.
I want those three minutes of my life back.
My apologies. I wasn't sure anyone would make it all the way through the article. A brave effort and excellent rebuttal.