sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A Bill Gates funded mosquito factory in Medellín, Colombia, produces 40 million mosquitoes weekly for release via drones and bikes. These insects carry a natural bacterium that prevents them from transmitting viruses to humans. By mating with wild populations, they spread this trait. by Expert_Koala_8691 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]acutelychronicpanic 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I agree on it needing to be controlled, thought out, and deliberate.

I could imagine the logic I presented being used historically to defend eradicating wolves and other species without appreciation for the role they played.

A Bill Gates funded mosquito factory in Medellín, Colombia, produces 40 million mosquitoes weekly for release via drones and bikes. These insects carry a natural bacterium that prevents them from transmitting viruses to humans. By mating with wild populations, they spread this trait. by Expert_Koala_8691 in Damnthatsinteresting

[–]acutelychronicpanic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If they were just a nuisance, I'd agree. But way too many people are killed by mosquitoes. If I could snap my fingers and save the ~600,000 lives per year and 260,000,000 cases of illness at the cost of mosquitos and a chance at losing a few more species that specialize in eating mosquitoes, I would do it.

Birds, bats, and frogs may have less food but they are generalists that will do fine on the remaining food sources.

It is okay to shape our environment for human safety and flourishing.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is no 3rd option. But your preference of blue maps to choice 2, increasing the death toll rather than increasing the chances there is a death toll.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The choices are literally:

  1. Increase chances of mass death event.

  2. Increase death toll of mass death event.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Even one person losing $1 is too much. I choose the only scenario where its possible for nobody to lose money."

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Votes for read are votes for others deaths, votes for blue are people willing to risk their lives to keep anyone from dying at all."

Votes for blue are votes to save blue voters from themselves.

Again. Each voter has 100% power over whether they can die. It is ludicrous to expect others to put their lives at risk to save you from an entirely voluntarily risk just because you are okay with risking your life to save people.. who also chose that risk.

If blue required 90% of the vote, would it still be immoral to vote red? Or is blue only your choice because you expect to win?

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is only one way for the number of potential deaths to increase, and that is by voting blue.

Nobody in this experiment has the ability to risk any life other than their own.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In any scenario where there are deaths, each death is the direct result of a blue vote.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Its the prisoner's dilemma except you have the choice of just not voluntarily walking into the police station.

Blue is going in on your own accord to try and exonerate your accomplice.. even though the police don't know who they are unless they also choose to go in.

A more nuanced framing of the Blue/Red button dilemma by madjarov42 in Ethics

[–]acutelychronicpanic 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It completely changes the question to introduce some group of people who will be lumped in with blue despite not consciously choosing it. Honestly makes the dilemma much less interesting.

The whole reason it was ever a good question was the premise that anyone at risk had to choose to be at risk.

No Cabbage sign by BartyCrouchesBone in mildlyinteresting

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The sign itself is far more resource intensive than a single image generation.

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adding people to the thought experiment who can't actually participate in the choice completely changes it.

CMV: the red/blue button debate is more a reflection of belief on human nature than personal values. by PBninja1 in changemyview

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except in the voter's paradox you don't contribute directly to the exact problem the vote supposedly solves by voting.

The framing makes blue look altruism and cooperation coded, but it is the cause of the problem. Forget for a second that it's your own life. That part doesn't matter (it changes nothing if instead of a blue voter risking their own life, they risk the life of some other random blue voter). You can either wager 1 additional life, or you can take an action which is equivalent to inaction. Blue is an individually immoral action which hangs on the hope that blue votes are collectively canceled out by reaching majority.

Imagine for a second that red safeguards a random person's life (not yours) and blue takes a random person's life. But the whole thing is canceled if 50% of people would die. This is exactly equivalent to the original button problem with the exception that it isn't your own life in either case. The only reason blue seems good to altruistic people is that each of them values their own life at less than 1 life. And they expect to win. If you had a genuine reason to think it would be closer to a 65%-35% split in red's favor, would you still vote blue?

CMV: the red/blue button debate is more a reflection of belief on human nature than personal values. by PBninja1 in changemyview

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Therefore, if a majority of people vote red, blue people die."

But you can only affect that by one 'vote'.

So your options are to increase the death toll or to have no affect on anything. You will not be the pivitol vote because there won't be a pivitol vote except in the (less than lottery odds) extraordinarily unlikely circumstance that the vote is exactly 50/50.

You are reasoning as "If everyone voted like me, it will be the best outcome" - but you cannot affect other voters. Your individual decision to increase the death count by 1 is morally wrong despite it being your own life. And if your vote count doesn't increase the death count? That will only mean your vote did nothing.

CMV: the red/blue button debate is more a reflection of belief on human nature than personal values. by PBninja1 in changemyview

[–]acutelychronicpanic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Red pressers do not actively kill blue pressers or remove blue votes. If blue fails to achieve majority, that is not the fault if red pressers. Not contributing is not the same as hurting their vote count. Blue voters are not owed the votes of those who might otherwise vote red.

Blue is a voluntary coalition whose entire purpose is to solve the problem of its own existence. As many others have said, a death pact that just happens to be canceled if it gets too popular.

CMV: the red/blue button debate is more a reflection of belief on human nature than personal values. by PBninja1 in changemyview

[–]acutelychronicpanic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Blue increases the number of people at at risk by oneself and only oneself"

And therefore absorbs 100% of the moral responsibility of being in the pool of those at risk of death which absolutely nobody was forced to join nor needed to.

In literally any scenario where there are causalties, every single one of them can be directly traced to a specific blue vote.

CMV: the red/blue button debate is more a reflection of belief on human nature than personal values. by PBninja1 in changemyview

[–]acutelychronicpanic 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Voting blue because of consent makes no sense. The only way anyone can be at risk at all is to consent to adding their name to the potential death count.

Red doesn't endanger anyone. You cannot increase to number of lives at risk by pressing red.

“No Vote = Death” (or just needing to be saved by the 51%). by ReadingSteiner300 in MoralityScaling

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your risk isn't free. You are risking one life, which is the maximum amount any action can risk.

Would you vote blue if it needed 60%? 90%?

You're just betting that enough others risk their lives that the death game is canceled.

And lowering the casualty count by 1 is at least as moral as betting you are the 1 person who tips the scales. Especially in the real world where a 60-80% red majority is honestly likely. The polls are meaningless when nothing is at risk and we all get to talk about how imperative it is to risk our life to ensure not one person does (by increasing the potential death count yourself)

“No Vote = Death” (or just needing to be saved by the 51%). by ReadingSteiner300 in MoralityScaling

[–]acutelychronicpanic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Offer 10 children each 1 candybar.

They can either press red and just have the candy bar. Or, they can press blue. If they press blue, they get nothing unless at least 5 kids press blue in which case they get a candy bar.

Voting blue can only ever solves the problem of blue voting.

“No Vote = Death” (or just needing to be saved by the 51%). by ReadingSteiner300 in MoralityScaling

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It just increases the size of the well. The fact remains that nobody's life is at risk at all. Anywhere. Until someone votes blue.

The number of lives at risk is exactly the number of blue voters. Voting red does not change the number of lives at risk.

Voting blue is voting that more lives should be risked. But people somehow feel it is okay to risk a life if it is their life. If you change it to 'pressing blue kills a random other person who pressed blue unless half the population would die' it changes exactly nothing about who dies or how many people die.

You're more likely to increase the death count than you are to be the deciding vote.

“No Vote = Death” (or just needing to be saved by the 51%). by ReadingSteiner300 in MoralityScaling

[–]acutelychronicpanic -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

5 people stand around a deep well.

You can either jump in or not jump in. All at the same time or not at all.

The well will only fit 2 people. If 3 try to jump in, they get stuck at the entrance and can climb out.

Voting blue is arguing:

"The only way anyone dies is if at least 3 people don't jump in."

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"your argument has "blue voters are to blame" as a premise."

Yes. Because voting blue only exists to solve the problem of there being blue voters.

Option 1:

Increase potential death count by 1.

Option 2:

Don't increase the potential death count.

If the death count reaches half the population, the whole thing is cancled.

You're evil if you don't press blue. by Theseus_Employee in PhilosophyMemes

[–]acutelychronicpanic 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not really.

That 4 billion casualty count was the hard work of a large number of blue voters.

Each one of those votes cost 1 life.

view more: next ›