These people are our future

[CoccoBill]

Which island has a higher expected value for salt production? If there is even a small chance that the poor man stops working on the charity-island, the EV for total island-salt is higher on the no-charity island. The only way to logically refute this is to show that the poor man is equally likely to stop working in either situation, and you have already admitted that you think the man receiving charity is at least slightly more likely to stop working.

So I ask again, do you agree on these two points?

1. Wealth = stuff we value and can own.
2. Charity reduces total expected value of wealth on the island.

I don't recall complaining anything about the definition of wealth, even though ISF did include all collective values, morals and happiness in this at some point before you decided that they do not. Anyway, no, I do not agree with 2. Again, I have agreed that there is a small chance what you're saying can happen, nothing more, please don't put words in my mouth. Do you understand that a given situation can be affected by more than one variable? Do you understand the meaning of the following paragraph?

Your argument is that the rich guy will stop working if someone touches his profits, and that the poor guy stops working if someone gives him something. My argument is that both of these effects are negligible, and far smaller than e.g. the effect of providing affordable health care to ensure the poor guy stays able to work.

[Lyric]

I don't recall complaining anything about the definition of wealth, even though ISF did include all collective values, morals and happiness in this at some point before you decided that they do not. Anyway, no, I do not agree with 2. Again, I have agreed that there is a small chance what you're saying can happen, nothing more, please don't put words in my mouth. Do you understand that a given situation can be affected by more than one variable? Do you understand the meaning of the following paragraph?

Bill, I see your point. I'm trying to reduce this to the lowest common denominator in order to understand the situation. I am trying to solve a logic puzzle, and your suggestion that providing help for the poor or dying or sick/crippled etc is +EV is a valid point. I agree. We have to think about where the optimal "line" exists.

If two men are on an island and one is sick and dying, is it +EV to help to him survive? I would say that it is, and I assume you would as well. We do not have problem on this point.

So let's reformulate our question. We agree that if we are two men on an island and I get sick, it is +EV for you to help me. What if there are three? What if the third man sees me dying, you don't realize it's a good idea to help me live, and the third man invents a gun and demands that you help me. Is that a good idea for the three man island?

[CoccoBill]

So let's reformulate our question. We agree that if we are two men on an island and I get sick, it is +EV for you to help me. What if there are three? What if the third man sees me dying, you don't realize it's a good idea to help me live, and the third man invents a gun and demands that you help me. Is that a good idea for the three man island?

What is your question exactly, is what a good idea? For the gunman to instead explain to me why helping you out benefits all of us, and for the 3 of us to make a mutual agreement to help each other out when in need? Yes, I think that's a great idea.

[Lyric]

What is your question exactly, is what a good idea? For the gunman to instead explain to me why helping you out benefits all of us, and for the 3 of us to make a mutual agreement to help each other out when in need? Yes, I think that's a great idea.

Jesus. No. I'm asking if the third man should point the gun at you, take your shit, and give it to me. IDK the answer, I can only guess, but let's think about this.