Anonymous #2 3w

I think the point is that people shouldn't have to die for this to happen.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

If tens of millions have to die to create the perfect system, then it isn’t the perfect system is it? The perfect system is one that’s achieved without suffering and death on a horrific scale

12

Anonymous #1 3w

Well yeah but ideally nobody should suffer ever, that’s just not reality. I’m not saying that there necessarily is a valuable trade off in this example but there could theoretically be one, and if so that decision would be worth thinking about.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

It’s just a much bigger version of the trolley problem, with much less clear tradeoffs. Which is why I say that I’d never agree to such a policy, even if it would theoretically result in less human suffering overall

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Perfect doesn’t exist, I don’t think anyone was claiming a perfect system could be built. The thing to consider is ‘will this action, which requires the death of 70 million people, result in less human suffering overall?’ If 70 million people need to die for 100 billion + future people to live amazing lives devoid of most suffering, that might be a worthwhile tradeoff.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Or, we find a way to achieve less human suffering without 70 million people dying. And it’s not like a beautiful future was created out of that death and suffering in China. It’s a repressive dictatorship that’s squashed human rights and is committing a genocide against an ethnic minority while constantly threatening war with its neighbors. But hey they have fast trains and pretty neon skylines so it was all worth it

0

Anonymous #2 3w

I mean that’s why we send young men to die in our wars (at least our older wars like WWII). We figure that these men’s deaths will allow far more people to live far better lives. The tradeoff makes sense. Unlike this example though I would never personally be ok with the 70 million Chinese lives trade off situation. The benefits are so uncertain and the suffering of those people is so immense.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

On the basic level we all understand the principle of tradeoffs. But this person in particular is completely fucking insane. You should see their next reply to me

1

Anonymous OP 3w

No absolutely. Ik I’m being a bit pedantic, taking a devils advocate stance. I don’t agree with what they did in china and obviously it wasn’t worth it at all.

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Send the reply 👀👀

1

Anonymous OP 3w

Yeah if I thought like that you’d need to waterboard that out of me lmao. Then again if I thought like that I probably wouldn’t see anything wrong with the statement in the first place

1

Anonymous #2 3w

Yeah the moment I saw this mf say “subjects” I was like alright there’s no point lmao

1

Anonymous OP 3w

It’s the afterthought of “dating” right after “subjects” that does it for me 💀

1

Anonymous #2 3w

I don’t know if this indicates an Andrew Tate education or not lmao

1