Lecture 6: Intergenerational Fairness (Fall 2024) PDF

Population axiology Population ethics Intergenerational Fairness Fall 2024, Lecture 6 Paolo G. Piacquadio1 1FGN-HSG October 25, 2024........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Pop...

Population axiology Population ethics Intergenerational Fairness Fall 2024, Lecture 6 Paolo G. Piacquadio1 1FGN-HSG October 25, 2024........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Population axiology Population ethics Population Axiology by Hilary Greaves (2017)........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Population axiology Population ethics Comments....................................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Population axiology Population ethics Comments....................................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Population axiology Population ethics Comments....................................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Population ethics........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Research questions Fact: The size of future population is and can be influenced by policy: in 2016, 85% of world countries adopted policies to influence—raise, maintain, or lower—the level of fertility (UN report, 2017); Question: knowing that policy influences population, how to do so? Related questions: How to teach AI how to prioritize in life/death situations; How to manage pandemics? How much to invest in health safety? In economics, the easy answer for all questions is: give me your social welfare functions and I will compute the optimal policy......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Research questions Fact: The size of future population is and can be influenced by policy: in 2016, 85% of world countries adopted policies to influence—raise, maintain, or lower—the level of fertility (UN report, 2017); Question: knowing that policy influences population, how to do so? Related questions: How to teach AI how to prioritize in life/death situations; How to manage pandemics? How much to invest in health safety? In economics, the easy answer for all questions is: give me your social welfare functions and I will compute the optimal policy......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Research questions Fact: The size of future population is and can be influenced by policy: in 2016, 85% of world countries adopted policies to influence—raise, maintain, or lower—the level of fertility (UN report, 2017); Question: knowing that policy influences population, how to do so? Related questions: How to teach AI how to prioritize in life/death situations; How to manage pandemics? How much to invest in health safety? In economics, the easy answer for all questions is: give me your social welfare functions and I will compute the optimal policy......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Quality versus quantity Ultimately, the population problem consists of identifying the tradeoff between quality and quantity of people......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Quantity versus quality In economics and philosophy jargon, this issue has been modeled as comparing vectors of utilities (one for each living individual) of different size. U = (9, 9, 9) V = (3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3) Which vector is socially more desirable?........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Welfare criteria Two prominent criteria are total utilitarianism ! W= Ui ; and i average utilitarianism " Ui W=. N........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Quality versus quantity Even in the absence of inequality, this is an extremely hard question......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Total utilitarianism The long right tail of total utilitarianism is an evidence of the “repugnant conclusion” (Parfit). Repugnant conclusion: For any world with people enjoying very high utility, there exists a much larger world with people having lifes that are barely worth living that is socially better. How general is this result? can it be avoided? how to interpret it?........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Total utilitarianism Parfit showed that it is closely linked to the “mere addition principle,” an axiom telling that adding people with a life worth living is good for society......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Average utilitarianism Average utilitarianism assigns no value to the number of individuals. It violates the mere addition principle. Would it be better to have a world with only one (reasonably well-off) individual rather than having 8 billion? Moreover, it leads to the sadistic conclusion: It may be better to add few people with life not worth living, rather than adding (many) people with lives worth living......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Change in focus As Keynes famously said, “economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world.” [Keynes, 1973, page 296] I suggest to tackle this impass by a change in focus: universal domain =⇒ fertility utilities =⇒ preferences atemporal =⇒ dynamic infinite horizon......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Change in focus As Keynes famously said, “economics is a science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world.” [Keynes, 1973, page 296] I suggest to tackle this impass by a change in focus: universal domain =⇒ fertility utilities =⇒ preferences atemporal =⇒ dynamic infinite horizon......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Planets and children Imagine God deciding between creating a universe with one planet occupied by n happy people, and a universe with two planets, each occupied by n people, each just as happy as those in the first universe. Does the fact that there are twice as many happy people in the latter universe constitute a reason for God preferring to create it? (Kavka, 1978, p.196) Now substitute God creating planets with parents generating children. If a parent can decide (and is indifferent) between 1 and 2 equally happy children, how should society value these alternatives?........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Planets and children Imagine God deciding between creating a universe with one planet occupied by n happy people, and a universe with two planets, each occupied by n people, each just as happy as those in the first universe. Does the fact that there are twice as many happy people in the latter universe constitute a reason for God preferring to create it? (Kavka, 1978, p.196) Now substitute God creating planets with parents generating children. If a parent can decide (and is indifferent) between 1 and 2 equally happy children, how should society value these alternatives?........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Total utilitarianism " For God, total utilitarianism i Ui has a clear prediction: God should create 2 planets; God would do even better by creating sufficiently many planets with somewhat unhappy people; " when adding a critical level, i (Ui − k), the conclusions roughly extend. For parents, total utilitarianism has the same prediction: A parent who is indifferent between 1 child and 2 children should rather get 2; Social welfare is larger when forcing parents to have more children; If the additional child has its own dynasty, the well-being loss of parents is irrelevant......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Total utilitarianism " For God, total utilitarianism i Ui has a clear prediction: God should create 2 planets; God would do even better by creating sufficiently many planets with somewhat unhappy people; " when adding a critical level, i (Ui − k), the conclusions roughly extend. For parents, total utilitarianism has the same prediction: A parent who is indifferent between 1 child and 2 children should rather get 2; Social welfare is larger when forcing parents to have more children; If the additional child has its own dynasty, the well-being loss of parents is irrelevant......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Average utilitarianism " For God, average utilitarianism N−1 i Ui suggests: the number of planets is irrelevant; God would do better by creating one planet with very few extremely happy people. For parents, average utilitarianism suggests: A parent who is indifferent between 1 child and 2 children should get 2 iff their utility is larger than average utility; Social welfare is larger when forcing parents to have fewer or more children, depending on their utility; If the additional child has its own dynasty, the well-being loss of parents is irrelevant......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Average utilitarianism " For God, average utilitarianism N−1 i Ui suggests: the number of planets is irrelevant; God would do better by creating one planet with very few extremely happy people. For parents, average utilitarianism suggests: A parent who is indifferent between 1 child and 2 children should get 2 iff their utility is larger than average utility; Social welfare is larger when forcing parents to have fewer or more children, depending on their utility; If the additional child has its own dynasty, the well-being loss of parents is irrelevant......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal My suggestion Main idea: With some proviso, parents should be entitled to choose how many children to have; said differently, society ought to respect the fertility preferences of parents. Which proviso? no externalities (resources, climate, technology); [free] no “unfair” preferences (too little weight on children). [hard]........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal My suggestion Main idea: With some proviso, parents should be entitled to choose how many children to have; said differently, society ought to respect the fertility preferences of parents. Which proviso? no externalities (resources, climate, technology); [free] no “unfair” preferences (too little weight on children). [hard]........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Main result In a recent paper I suggest and axiomatically characterize the fertilitarian social welfare function. Main properties: respects the (ordinal) fertility preferences of parents; avoids controversial implications of existing criteria; generalizes discounted utilitarianism; has a “simple” recursive formulation......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Main result In a recent paper I suggest and axiomatically characterize the fertilitarian social welfare function. Main properties: respects the (ordinal) fertility preferences of parents; avoids controversial implications of existing criteria; generalizes discounted utilitarianism; has a “simple” recursive formulation......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Fertilitarianism: properties For constant population, fertilitarianism is equivalent to discounted utilitarianism. Pros: simple and intuitive; standard in economics; time consistent. Cons: it would be interesting to explore alternative non-additive criteria......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Fertilitarianism: properties For constant population, fertilitarianism is equivalent to discounted utilitarianism. Pros: simple and intuitive; standard in economics; time consistent. Cons: it would be interesting to explore alternative non-additive criteria......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Fertilitarianism: properties Despite respecting fertility preferences, fertilitarian social welfare functions are paternalistic. Parents might be willing to reduce fertility and increase their own consumption. The fertilitarian criterion disagrees: this would force society to be inequality loving! Parents might be willing to increase fertility and reduce descendants consumptions. The fertilitarian criterion disagrees: this might force society to have too high discount rate!........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Fertilitarianism: properties Despite respecting fertility preferences, fertilitarian social welfare functions are paternalistic. Parents might be willing to reduce fertility and increase their own consumption. The fertilitarian criterion disagrees: this would force society to be inequality loving! Parents might be willing to increase fertility and reduce descendants consumptions. The fertilitarian criterion disagrees: this might force society to have too high discount rate!........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Conclusion Economics is sometimes at an impasse, mostly due to path dependence. Normative economics has many examples: utilitarianism as only reasonable alternative; no place for fairness/rights/procedures/desert/needs; models might miss key ingredients (risk). Here, the standard approach to population ethics is stripped of any information about how more or fewer individuals exist. This information might be morally relevant and matter for our social welfare function. I presented one proposal, but there are many more to be discovered......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Conclusion Economics is sometimes at an impasse, mostly due to path dependence. Normative economics has many examples: utilitarianism as only reasonable alternative; no place for fairness/rights/procedures/desert/needs; models might miss key ingredients (risk). Here, the standard approach to population ethics is stripped of any information about how more or fewer individuals exist. This information might be morally relevant and matter for our social welfare function. I presented one proposal, but there are many more to be discovered......................................... Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness  Introduction Population axiology Standard setting Population ethics A different proposal Thank you!........................................ Paolo G. Piacquadio Intergenerational Fairness