No. This game is retarded.
However I would rather support the factory farming industries than slaughter an animal myself. Heaven forbid the sight of blood.
Or you could just not eat meat.
For some reference, it takes about 30 doublings to reach 1 billion, 33 to reach 8 billion.
Yeah I just looked that up after reading your previous post.
By 33 people the doublings it would be the whole world, Any rules in this case are unwritten and while we can't hit another double, there are no rules suggesting the 33rd person has no choice. Nor is there a rule for passing it back to someone who already had the misfortune of making this decision.
Well, you're basically right about the fact the scenario has you make a lot of assumptions for there to be any basis of a choice. However, either there would be a final person to make a choice at all, or everyone winds up on that trolley track in the end (caveat: our population is the hard limit). It would still remain true, that if it were to get to that point, everyone that has passed on the decision would end up on those tracks. There's nothing exempting anyone from that fate, is what I meant, not that they must decide again. (But now that you bring it up, that's not clear either. If one isn't on the tracks already, perhaps you're still in the pool for random selection to be decision-maker.)
...Oh, yeah. I think I see what you mean: that someone comes off the track. Fair enough, I guess.
Thrall to the Wire of Self-Excited Circuit.
last edit on
10/23/2025 7:17:18 PM
For some reference, it takes about 30 doublings to reach 1 billion, 33 to reach 8 billion.
Yeah I just looked that up after reading your previous post.
By 33 people the doublings it would be the whole world, Any rules in this case are unwritten and while we can't hit another double, there are no rules suggesting the 33rd person has no choice. Nor is there a rule for passing it back to someone who already had the misfortune of making this decision.
Well, you're basically right about the fact the scenario has you make a lot of assumptions for there to be any basis of a choice. However, either there would be a final person to make a choice at all, or everyone winds up on that trolley track in the end (caveat: our population is the hard limit). It would still remain true, that if it were to get to that point, everyone that has passed on the decision would end up on those tracks. There's nothing exempting anyone from that fate, is what I meant, not that they must decide again. (But now that you bring it up, that's not clear either. If one isn't on the tracks already, perhaps you're still in the pool for random selection to be decision-maker.)
...Oh, yeah. I think I see what you mean: that someone comes off the track. Fair enough, I guess.
While it's easy to assume there's no accuracy in numbers on the 33rd double, unwritten rules will have to be bent to accommodate the cycle and just settle for the rest, with 1 final person to make the decision.
If the final person chooses to pass it along, the game should end.
Now if all 8 billion of us had to have a turn, then it would make sense to kill the first person to save the world.
Also, my model is based on killing the people to be a really big chore. The people on the track represent random individuals selected by whoever's it, and there's no choice but to participate. If random people would simply appear on the track to die, it would roughly be the same, just more efficient and easier to squeeze the trigger.
As I mentioned before we did the math, the number of deaths would be too big of a task for anyone to carry out. 33 is an extremely low number and landing on someone who would do the grunt work within 33 swings, would be very bad luck on a scale as great as winning the lottery.
No. This game is retarded.
However I would rather support the factory farming industries than slaughter an animal myself. Heaven forbid the sight of blood.
Or you could just not eat meat.
Well yes.
If the final person chooses to pass it along, the game should end.
According to who's rules?
At this point, all we know is that whoever made the rules to this Trolly test doesn't mind murdering tons and tons of other people at the press of a button, so we have no reason to presume they'd follow something fair or moral. This could be aliens or demons or psychos or whatever with no reason to stop us from driving ourselves extinct.
Either way the person who is the architect for such a situation, if it were to be real and not hypothetical like some sort of Supervillain Joker Ultimatum, is clearly not a good person if they can put people in that situation in the first place as some sort of 'test'.
If we look at this as a series of constants, if the trolly lever simply changes lanes then the train is always presumed to be moving. With no one left to pull the lever, it'd hit those who are tied to the tracks the same as if a person chose not to pull it. Within those presumed constraints, by the final time every human would die, or maybe they'll start tying other forms of life to the tracks to make up for the numbers. We don't know, and we have no reason to presume there's some prize at the end for potentially maximizing the damage.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
last edit on
10/24/2025 2:14:46 PM
If the final person chooses to pass it along, the game should end.
According to who's rules?
It's common sense. Final person passes it along and there are no more humans to double up on.
When I say the game "should" end, that doesn't mean it's a rule, though the situation at this point would be a stalemate.
At this point, all we know is that whoever made the rules to this Trolly test doesn't mind murdering tons and tons of other people at the press of a button, so we have no reason to presume they'd follow something fair or moral. This could be aliens or demons or psychos or whatever with no reason to stop us from driving ourselves extinct.
Either way the person who is the architect for such a situation, if it were to be real and not hypothetical like some sort of Supervillain Joker Ultimatum, is clearly not a good person if they can put people in that situation in the first place as some sort of 'test'.
If we look at this as a series of constants, if the trolly lever simply changes lanes then the train is always presumed to be moving. With no one left to pull the lever, it'd hit those who are tied to the tracks the same as if a person chose not to pull it. Within those presumed constraints, by the final time every human would die, or maybe they'll start tying other forms of life to the tracks to make up for the numbers. We don't know, and we have no reason to presume there's some prize at the end for potentially maximizing the damage.
There are other factors such as how powerful is the games designer and can they pull off what they set to do. If they are, they'd just wipe us out anyway.
If the final person chooses to pass it along, the game should end.
According to who's rules?
It's common sense. Final person passes it along and there are no more humans to double up on.
We don't have enough information to surmise this follows common sense, we just know the doubling up rule has human lives on the line.
When I say the game "should" end, that doesn't mean it's a rule, though the situation at this point would be a stalemate.
Or you pat yourself on the back for being so clever while the entire human race dies.
At this point, all we know is that whoever made the rules to this Trolly test doesn't mind murdering tons and tons of other people at the press of a button, so we have no reason to presume they'd follow something fair or moral. This could be aliens or demons or psychos or whatever with no reason to stop us from driving ourselves extinct.
Either way the person who is the architect for such a situation, if it were to be real and not hypothetical like some sort of Supervillain Joker Ultimatum, is clearly not a good person if they can put people in that situation in the first place as some sort of 'test'.
If we look at this as a series of constants, if the trolly lever simply changes lanes then the train is always presumed to be moving. With no one left to pull the lever, it'd hit those who are tied to the tracks the same as if a person chose not to pull it. Within those presumed constraints, by the final time every human would die, or maybe they'll start tying other forms of life to the tracks to make up for the numbers. We don't know, and we have no reason to presume there's some prize at the end for potentially maximizing the damage.There are other factors such as how powerful is the games designer and can they pull off what they set to do. If they are, they'd just wipe us out anyway.
And now you'd rather just go with being defeated instead of mathematically figuring the lowest sum cost.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
According to who's rules?
It's common sense. Final person passes it along and there are no more humans to double up on.
We don't have enough information to surmise this follows common sense, we just know the doubling up rule has human lives on the line.
Of course we do, as the 33 doubling is the last of the supply of people in the world. We then cannot double up after passing it along. At that point something changed, and something has to change.
When I say the game "should" end, that doesn't mean it's a rule, though the situation at this point would be a stalemate.
Or you pat yourself on the back for being so clever while the entire human race dies.
The deaths rely on someone handling the burden instead of passing it along. If 33 passes means imminent death, that would be a rule you came up with.
At this point, all we know is that whoever made the rules to this Trolly test doesn't mind murdering tons and tons of other people at the press of a button, so we have no reason to presume they'd follow something fair or moral. This could be aliens or demons or psychos or whatever with no reason to stop us from driving ourselves extinct.
Either way the person who is the architect for such a situation, if it were to be real and not hypothetical like some sort of Supervillain Joker Ultimatum, is clearly not a good person if they can put people in that situation in the first place as some sort of 'test'.
If we look at this as a series of constants, if the trolly lever simply changes lanes then the train is always presumed to be moving. With no one left to pull the lever, it'd hit those who are tied to the tracks the same as if a person chose not to pull it. Within those presumed constraints, by the final time every human would die, or maybe they'll start tying other forms of life to the tracks to make up for the numbers. We don't know, and we have no reason to presume there's some prize at the end for potentially maximizing the damage.There are other factors such as how powerful is the games designer and can they pull off what they set to do. If they are, they'd just wipe us out anyway.
And now you'd rather just go with being defeated instead of mathematically figuring the lowest sum cost.
Don't know where you got that from while my response entails a human uprising. Resistance. Counter balance.
You're the one assuming that getting past the range of the human population stops the problem, even called it 'Common Sense'.
I'm saying we lack that answer, and that if you're wrong you just killed every human being.
Ę̵̚x̸͎̾i̴͚̽s̵̻͐t̷͐ͅe̷̯͠n̴̤̚t̵̻̅i̵͉̿a̴̮͊l̵͍̂ ̴̹̕D̵̤̀e̸͓͂t̵̢͂e̴͕̓c̸̗̄t̴̗̿ï̶̪v̷̲̍é̵͔
You're the one assuming that getting past the range of the human population stops the problem, even called it 'Common Sense'.
It is common sense, as the game is reliant on supply. If there's no supply left the game is broken.
I'm saying we lack that answer, and that if you're wrong you just killed every human being.
Is that, blame ? I wouldn't be accountable for whatever any of the other 32 participants decide to do.
If exceeding the maximum entails imminent death for all, then killing the first person would be best. That attribute would only be instilled by an insecure imagination in this case, as that rule wasn't stated.
Also, from the basic structure of the game, death can only happen by decision. It's "kill" or "not kill and double it up and pass it on". In this case, the 33rd person can decide to not kill, and the doubling up and passing can't happen.
Your assumption is the game will default to imminent death if everyone passes.