Do i get to choose the person i kill?
And how I kill them?
easy there killer
As long as everyone doubles there will be no deaths.
Why do I get the feeling this kind of logic is used by modern day economists to justify inflation?
But I don’t know if I trust literally infinite people. It might be better to kill one. Because unless you believe all humans are 100% willing to never kill someone then you’re risking a number of deaths larger than 1. (Potentially much larger.)
No need to trust infinite people. You just need to get past 33 forks before you run out of people to operate the switch or to be tied to the tracks.
Would they not simply be trapped tied to the tracks until a nonexistent remaining person makes a choice? Also you’re trusting that 32nd person not to kill just under 5 billion people.
The last person does not get to choose, 5 billion people just die
When we are all strapped to the tracks, who will decide?
Endless regress here we go
How fast is the train going can I make it to the person who’s tied down and lay with them
You try to save them all by tackling the guy on the second track. The train is 400m from the wye in the track but 375m from the point the second person can decide to flip the switch. You are 270m from the second person. The train travels at a steady 15m/s. You start running at an acceleration of 0.5m/s/s. Can you tackle the second person to prevent them from flipping the switch? Assume flipping the switch means killing the poor tied up folks.
I dunno. I just made up numbers though.
I assume if they DON’T flip it, it gets passed yo the next guy with 4 people tied to the track.
33junctions down the road, and it’s the population of the earth tied down.
I’d get it done and over with. I would resent myself forever, and accept any punishment for it, but it’s better than waiting to see if someone wants to decide to kill off half the world later on. Would be even easier if I could take the first persons spot on the tracks so there only has to be one messed up person rather than two.
In recognition of your heroic sacrifice, I volunteer to pull the switch to send the train to run over you.
The optimal solution to the trolley problem is always the one that makes the least sense because the more chaos injected into any system the less predictable the results will be.
So I pull it, kill the other person at the second lever, and drag throw the person from the first set of tracks to the place where the train switches tracks. wrench the lever free from the top part and place it on the tracks where the train would switch too.
Fucked if I know what the outcome is.
Schrödingers murder: You are both a murder and not a murder. You are not a murderer as you did not choose to kill a person, but as this can not continue forever you are also a murderer since it is quite certain that eventually someone will choose murder.
Can you murder through innaction? By not pulling the lever, you haven’t changed the system.
Yes. You can. If you are responsible for pulling a lever to stop people from dying, and you don’t, that sounds very murdery to me
IANAL, but not in the legal definition of murder…
Legally speaking, I think the only legally correct (very much not morally) correct thing to do is absolutely nothing whatsoever.
You might be required to call the authorities, but given that either option in theory may eventually lead to the loss of life I think you’d be most safe legally, if you didn’t touch a damn thing.
232 is roughly four billion. We’ll need one or two more doublings to get every last person alive on the tracks.
This introduces a new wrinkle in the experiment: all the switch operators are also tied to the track. Somewhere.
Just a little more and every single particle in the universe will be on the tracks, and what the fuck would happen if every particle in the universe was split in twain? Let’s assume it radiated outward from the center of the universe at the speed of light…
so umm if it was every particle, what would be hitting it?
Don’t say my mom.Your mom.
ಠ__ಠ
My god, we’ve figured it out.
Is this some kind of IPv6 joke that’s gone over my head?
“double it and give it to the next person” was sort of a trend with street interview type content. Like “Do you want a cookie or double it and give it to the next person.” Then the second would be “Do you want two cookies or double it and give it to the next person?” Eventually someone takes the cookies. It wasn’t cookies necessarily, sometimes money, sometimes other trinkets, whatever.
Honestly I would. Like I wouldn’t hesitate to kill patient zero of a world ending disease.
Maybe a world ending disease is the cure… just looking around.
This guy is the perfect example of why we cannot trust somebody won’t pull the lever.
Youre right but for the wrong reason. Id pull it thinking it was going one way and it would go the other.
Cure for what? That’s a fascist argument. I am not accusing you. Just wanted to inform. I was intellectualizing like that once: if all humans die, life on the planet would thrive, species that go extinct wouldn’t be an issue we would only be seeing it as a product of the evolution of more biodiversity for sure…
Yet… A friend pointed out, that such disease is just a theorization and reality has shown that this kind of scenarios are lived in, for example, catastrophes. In those cases, the world ending event hits harder to the most vulnerable. Typically, the poorest fraction. Billionaire and other rich people will have resources, bunkers, time, and so on… They may even be saved.
And this is actually their agenda in, for example, climate change denialism and inaction.
That’s one reason why elites don’t care about the ecocide.
If the only people left alive were the cruelest, would they thrive? I know it seems unjust but we dont get upset that the dinosaurs once ruled the planet.
Personally, I think peoplle are corruptable. People arent inherently anything but circumstance plays a much bigger role. Essentially the most vulnerable people are just unlucky. Given the right luck they could only mirror the elite, not change their structure.
For the elite to see through the eyes of the homeless they would need to be made homeless and there is no other way.
But then it isn’t a world ending desease, you just killed somebody
The logic that nobody would ever die as long as nobody ever pulls falls through when you realize after 33 cycles you’re risking the entire human population on the whims of a stranger and that irrational actors will always exist.
It becomes not if but when.
The use of a time machine is implied in these situations
Kill the person who invented the trolley problem. It’s the only way to be sure
If you killed patient 0, then it wasn’t a world ending disease either.
Maybe there is nobody tied up after the third split, nobody explicitly stated it continues!
if the choice is always the same and it goes forever, then always choosing to pass means no one gets killed? unless you get to a little shit who breaks the trend
Yes. But it keeps going forever, and eventually some chaotic-evil person will kill choose to kill 2^43 people, which is a thousand times the world’s population.
Do you know any of the people involved?
at the 33rd round you do
deleted by creator
Not quite. Round 33 will have 2^32 people, or a bit over half the population of Earth. Remember, round 1 has one person, 2^(0), not 2^(1).
How many rounds until the first switch operator is on the tracks?
deleted by creator
Finally a life without shame.
If you are number 32 the chance is 50/50
Just keep doubling until max_int and segfault reality
How do you know blahblahblah only knows one person? Are you that one person?
What’s wrong with you, don’t you know 4 billion people
50/50
Sounds like what we have been doing with the environment.
