Sociopath Community

Suddenly curious how Jada feels about this question. 

He'd kill the first person and call it a day. Maybe a mild case of PTSD afterward so he'll climb down his ivory tower and seek help. 

Spatial, your idea assumes everyone agrees with you, and if they do, you'll have managed to get the entire humanity tied on a train track.

Here is what will actually happen. After your turn, when you run to the next person about to pull the lever (me, BT, TC, anyone else) to tell them about your masterful idea, they will look at you like you're mad and pull the lever, and then the only thing you will have accomplished is doubling your body count. The worse case scenario is that your idea somehow takes root until someone with sense pulls the lever, in which case, depending on how effective your stupidity was, you'll have managed to exponentially increase your kill count, possibly surpassing the likes of chairman Mao. And then in the exceedingly unlikely worst case scenario that you manage to somehow achieve what you wanted, all 8 billion of us are waiting to be run over by a train, and you'll be awarded humanity's last and greatest Darwin award.

Setting aside Spatial's retarded idea that could result in the extermination of humanity, what I find difficult to evaluate about the problem is whether or not I'd have the nerve to pull the lever. It feels easier to pass the responsibility on. However, given the rapidly increasing body count, it's the right thing to do. So, I'd do it.

Spatial Mind said: 

Turncoat said: 

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.

But it'd be liable to break via genocide. Oh wow, the game broke, oh no we ran out of people... is still the case if every human died. 

My point is that your presumption of 'breaking the game' is baseless, rather than any form of sense that could be called "common". If we were to use this thread as an example, the common consensus seems to be that your idea is a bad one. 

I'm saying we lack that answer, and that if you're wrong you just killed every human being. 

Is that, blame ?

No, it's results. 

I wouldn't be accountable for whatever any of the other 32 participants decide to do.

You would be, especially if you were one of the later ones asked, like if you were #28. 

If exceeding the maximum entails imminent death for all, then killing the first person would be best.

We aren't explicitly told this, which is why this has become a discussion. If they outright tell us the outcome, then we'd have nothing to debate here. We're working with the meme posted in the OP, which does not specify that. 

That attribute would only be instilled by an insecure imagination in this case, as that rule wasn't stated. 

Or logical reasoning via cause and effect, rather than baseless faith in something moral. 

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. 

It's numbers. If you were smart, you'd think of it mathematically rather than faithfully. 

Your assumption is the game will default to imminent death if everyone passes. 

You assume there's room to assume the morals of the one who put people through this test, as if it were God doing it. 

Jada said: 

Setting aside Spatial's retarded idea that could result in the extermination of humanity, what I find difficult to evaluate about the problem is whether or not I'd have the nerve to pull the lever. 

I'd be afraid not to, the sheer potential ramifications are more maddening to consider than the consequences of pulling the lever. By killing the current total, I am saving lives when you work reductively. 

In that sense, having someone like me in line with someone like Spatial proves your point. He'd blame me while his choice has my choice kill twice as many people if he went before me. While he's trying some weird idea of game theory against the  person  situation* putting humanity through this, I'm figuring how to save the most lives over how little we know. 

The lives at risk are the ones not yet on the tracks. After enough cycles it'll start to have friends and family among them, and potentially even yourself. The only time you can ensure your own safety is when it's your turn to decide on the lever pull, so this choice makes sense even for the most selfish person. 

Turncoat said: 

Suddenly curious how Jada feels about this question. 

 Suddenly curious how puppygirl feels about this question.  (Considering they posted it and have not offered their own input.)

When you think about it, it's a plague scenario. By allowing it to keep going rather than ending it then and there, you are allowing it to spread to more people. 

Turncoat said: 

Jada said: 

Setting aside Spatial's retarded idea that could result in the extermination of humanity, what I find difficult to evaluate about the problem is whether or not I'd have the nerve to pull the lever. 

I'd be afraid not to, the sheer potential ramifications are more maddening to consider than the consequences of pulling the lever. By killing the current total, I am saving lives when you work reductively. 

In that sense, having someone like me in line with someone like Spatial proves your point. He'd blame me while his choice has my choice kill twice as many people if he went before me. While he's trying some weird idea of game theory against the  person  situation* putting humanity through this, I'm figuring how to save the most lives over how little we know. 

The lives at risk are the ones not yet on the tracks. After enough cycles it'll start to have friends and family among them, and potentially even yourself. The only time you can ensure your own safety is when it's your turn to decide on the lever pull, so this choice makes sense even for the most selfish person. 

The only trouble I have is if I'd start as the first person, with only a single person on the track.  I could see wrestling with the implications longer, in that case.  Unless you have assurances that this process is to be followed through, it's still more sensible to kill those on the tracks if there's more than one.  However, if you're in the situation at all, it would be still rational to decide to kill the single person.  Either a) it's a prank and people can be horrified or concerned about your choice, and all that; or b) it's real and now you might have to go to trial for murder (but probably end up with some version of manslaughter, etc.).  It only makes sense with the little information we're given.

Turncoat said: 

When you think about it, it's a plague scenario. By allowing it to keep going rather than ending it then and there, you are allowing it to spread to more people. 

Actually, I see it also as an allegory for the effects of climate change and environmental damage which we push off to our next generations.  (Except the lesson isn't that we should kill a few people, though...)

...One might also consider nuclear proliferation, war, etc.

Buttered Toast said: 

Turncoat said: 

Jada said: 

Setting aside Spatial's retarded idea that could result in the extermination of humanity, what I find difficult to evaluate about the problem is whether or not I'd have the nerve to pull the lever. 

I'd be afraid not to, the sheer potential ramifications are more maddening to consider than the consequences of pulling the lever. By killing the current total, I am saving lives when you work reductively. 

In that sense, having someone like me in line with someone like Spatial proves your point. He'd blame me while his choice has my choice kill twice as many people if he went before me. While he's trying some weird idea of game theory against the  person  situation* putting humanity through this, I'm figuring how to save the most lives over how little we know. 

The lives at risk are the ones not yet on the tracks. After enough cycles it'll start to have friends and family among them, and potentially even yourself. The only time you can ensure your own safety is when it's your turn to decide on the lever pull, so this choice makes sense even for the most selfish person. 

The only trouble I have is if I'd start as the first person, with only a single person on the track.  I could see wrestling with the implications longer, in that case.  Unless you have assurances that this process is to be followed through, it's still more sensible to kill those on the tracks if there's more than one.  However, if you're in the situation at all, it would be still rational to decide to kill the single person.  Either a) it's a prank and people can be horrified or concerned about your choice, and all that; or b) it's real and now you might have to go to trial for murder (but probably end up with some version of manslaughter, etc.).  It only makes sense with the little information we're given.

Past a certain number, people who were once saved from being on the tracks find themselves right back on them. As a numbers game, even as #30+ at that point it's about having enough humans left to repopulate Earth. Even in earlier cycles what's the point of throwing it to the next person other than over allowing more people to die? SOMEBODY, like myself, will break the chain and all anyone passing it on's done is allowed a bigger death toll. 

There'd also be other people at the controls before you, each equally culpable to murder at the very least as an accomplice if this was somehow some cosmic legal gotcha like White Bear. Like White Bear, we only have what's presented to us to work with, and in that naive honesty I'd think the math makes sense to kill the current total.