July 2019 Meetup: The Repugnant Conclusion

1) What is an optimal course of action when you encounter a situation in which you have a good amount of epistemic uncertainty? We exist and act in the world, so we have to do something before we have all the information, right? 

No Half-Speed

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FMkQtPvzsriQAow5q/the-correct-response-to-uncertainty-is-not-half-speed

In this reading, how does one keep from getting caught in the troughs in the chart:

2) How does avoid getting (emotionally) attached to/invested in a side in a debate? How does this relate to getting emotionally invested in a specific outcome of a discrete event? 

The readings below also touch on identity, which seems to be a way into this topic:

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/627DZcvme7nLDrbZu/update-yourself-incrementally#fn1x25-bk

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/wTrgm2meHePfn3ykT/a-rational-identity

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uR8c2NPp4bWHQ5u45/strategic-choice-of-identity

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/Zupr296Zy74wpihXT/use-your-identity-carefully

3) The repugnant conclusion. This seems to be a line of thinking that seems to be operating in the background during a lot of discussions in effective altruism circles. Is it persuasive? If not, what is missing?

5-minute Explanation from Julia Galef

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/repugnant-conclusion/

Somewhat addresses what to do when confronted with a logical argument like this: