Moral Dilemmas and Technology!

[@zerid0]

4:04 "Such a moral dilemma would never really occur" Actually it occurs every day. When someone needs an organ, we can wonder whether it would be the right choice to kill someone and harvest their organs to save 20 lives. That's the real life version of the trolley problem. We've decided that it wouldn't be right to do so but the dilemma is there nonetheless.

[@wilyriley_]

wait people get killed for the sole purpose of the organs? i thought people only use the organs from people who already died

[@matthewparker9276]

@@wilyriley_ that is the accepted method of sourcing organs for transplant. It is possible to harvest the organs from live donors, even necessary organs like the heart. Since that would result in their death though, as a society we view such methods as immoral, i.e. we would not pull the lever.

[@jdgfshdjfkakahdkshfhdjdh]

@@matthewparker9276 wow that's hm I don't know how I feel about that. It's interesting but kind of dark as well

[@adrienanderson7439]

@@Ff-rr6uj So those criminals are flipping the lever in a way? Usually they are doing it for their own personal gain and not to save these other people who need organs but regardless, they do keep more people alive. So are they doing the right thing? But to connect it to this video, maybe with better technology we could grow organs without the consciousness of a person, so we could use that to reduce that moral dilemma. Maybe with time we are improving technology, which is reducing moral dilemmas.

[@PeataPoeet]

Even more relevant examples at the moment would be covid (economy or deaths) and who to put on a ventilator when the number of the ventilators is limited.

[@matthewparker9276]

Thinking about the specific framing of the trolley problem is slightly missing the point though. The trolley problem is used to explore two significant questions in philosophy: what is the value of a human life? And, are there any objectively immoral acts? The parameters of the problem then change because the changes in the answers reveals some insight into those questions. Having drones, or any other technology, come in and rescue the people isn't a solution to the trolley problem, because it addresses neither of those two questions. The solutions to the problem will change with technological advancements of course, because technology alters society, and society informs our solutions, however the problem will always remain. Incidentally, the meme answer to the trolley problem of multi track drifting (running the trolley over both tracks so that everyone dies) is a solution to the trolley problem, since it offered an answer to the first question: life has no value.

[@mug8107]

This could be a podcast. In fact, this should be a podcast because you can’t turn off you phone and listen to this with KZbin Premium

[@quantumpuddles7591]

*insert KZbin premium ad here*

[@redrock9319]

Use Newpipe from f-droid.org

[@Duncan_Theenglishgent]

During the second world war, the Allied forces had cracked the Enigma Code and therefore knew where next sight that evading forces were going to target. The dilemma is, do you stop the town from being attacked and therefore reveal that you can decode the enemies secrets or allow the town to be attacked as planned allowing many people to be killed and injured although the enemy at this moment does not know that you know how to decode their code. The advantage can be taken at a later date where you can better capitalise on the situation. This really was a decision that had to be made and not one taken likely. I am glad that I was not the one that had to make it - they went for the latter and allowed the attack to happen.

[@U-Flame]

It's easy to think of how you would want to react in a situation but actual reaction can be very different. A lot of people would be too paralyzed in fear to act. Something similar happened to me where I witnessed a very close call, and while no one was hurt, I was too stuck to help in the moment. I was stopped at a red light in an intersection while a woman across the street was walking across. A car incoming showed no sign of stopping or slowing down. In that moment my mind was racing, who had the right of way? Was she jaywalking? Was he running a red? Should I do something? What can I do? Will he stop after all? Before the very simple solution of just honking my horn came to mind, the guy had already blown past, missing her by inches, freaking her out but otherwise unharmed.

[@rekrap2]

This comment community is amazing! I hope it doesn’t change. Everyone has such great points!

[@AgainstMyBetterJudgement]

I appreciate the discussion. Crimes of desperation could potentially go away. Crimes of passion will not. For example, as much as society seems to be detaching from monogamy, there's still a very real psychological need for personal relationships - people will still get angry when they feel they've been betrayed.

[@johnjames1195]

A perfect society with no crime is how you get to 1984. No crime you need big brother. You also need to be able to know if a person is gonna commit a crime before it happens. And then what can happen is the government doesn't agree with someone they could arrest them for a "thought crime"

[@namialus1376]

ok, but how does he make frequent hermitcraft vids, make ted talks every few days on accident, as well as play other games. either he is speed, or he has a time travel devce

[@hrithikpatel3444]

It's quite simple, he just clips it from his streams, these are non edited so it's quite easy

[@xyers9757]

Both.

[@namialus1376]

Hrithik Patel- im not dumb

[@jonahtran1834]

He knows about future technology since he is a time traveler. Everything makes so much sense now!

[@NStripleseven]

Freaking insane. I honestly have no idea, but I like it.

[@ultimatedude5686]

The problem is, instead of people getting more leisure time, companies will just hire fewer people, and unemployment will skyrocket if we don't do anything.

[@KarkaranosBuilds]

In relation to the Train dilemma, there was a book series I read called “Arc of a Scythe.” In it, the cloud had evolved and could bring back people from the dead. It controlled all threats- there was no disease, fire, or crashes, and it was relatively safe. With evolving technology, there will always be compromises and things we give up, albeit for a better world. I appreciate that you brought up farming as technology, since the definition is anything that makes life easier. My personal thoughts on the train dilemma, while just thinking about it, is that I would save the 20 people. If I could chose who would die, than I would have it be someone on their deathbed, suffering and in a lot of pain because it would save their suffering, and save the lives of 20 others. I feel like I would have to intervene, otherwise I’d feel very guilty. Any way I chose, I’d feel guilty for the death of the victims, If I was faced with that choice in real life, I don’t know if I’d be able to chose that

[@NStripleseven]

Karkaranos the Dragon Arc of a Scythe. Good series.

[@pitta3114]

I love the Arc Of A Scythe series! i'd recommend anyone read it :)

[@andreeacat7071]

I read yesterday a book titled “The Loop” and it was about technology becoming sentient and turning humanity against itself

[@leaf4836]

Good book

[@Clearsight314]

Oh haha I just wrote a comment suggesting that X reads the Arc of a Scythe!

[@TotatoC]

this riddle has always made my brain thinking way more than normal

[@NStripleseven]

That's the idea with these sorts of riddles and paradoxes.

[@TheFriso1234]

Thank god, technocrat xisuma has solved ethics. There will always be moral questions to answer, regardless of the technological advancement. We have enough food to feed the whole world, yet there are people dying of starvation. We live in a post-scarcity world, yet many people live with scarcity. It's about division/access to resources.

[@boiledegggaming8424]

The train riddle always has me thinking switch to one person definitely

[@derrickstorm6976]

"What if those twenty people are idiots for sitting on the tracks?"

[@tobymolloy5230]

think about cloudy with a chance of meatballs and what happened when they had unlimited access to food.

[@metadragon7500]

I think moral dilemmas will never end, because as technological innovation increases, the demand for more luxury increases. If world hunger is solved, people will want good healthcare to eliminate diseases. If universal free healthcare becomes the norm, people will want a secure and good job. The demands of the people will become higher and higher until there might be a point where technology won't be able to keep up with the standards of the people.

[@matthewparker9276]

I do think it possible that we will eventually develop the technology to eliminate the criminal mindset (and thus crime not committed out of neccesity), but I'm not so sure that if we developed that technology that we should use it. Which I _think_ was the point of the video.

[@NathanAMeyers]

The utility of each action or life is calculable. Although rather brash, systems like Jeremy bentham's felicific calculus attempt to categorize and evaluate many aspects of human worth and action values. Tech will one day be able to further develop this, surely, but the most important thing is for society to 1st reconcile the value of such utilitarianism as being the most defensible general moral structure. The "ought" dilemma of the trolley problem doesn't stop at who to substitute or to what degree, it also brings responsibility into question. If the whole world was on the train tracks but the button would only kill 1 person, would the button presser still be responsible for that 1 death - akin to manslaughter or even murder? Would the more defensible action be to not get involved and therefore not be held liable for any life or, like voting, is choosing to do nothing a choice akin to you putting the whole world on the tracks? If we look further back to a section of philosophy called lifeboat ethics, we see similar quandries. If there's only so much room on a single lifeboat, who do we take? To we oblige the fat person who takes up two seats on the principle that they arrived first? Do we take all the old people purposefully because they are wise? Do we take all the young people particularly because they have the greatest ability to develop? Do we take the people who's bodies are more likely to last longest without food - giving the tiny lifeboat a greater chance of seeking shelter while purposefully leaving those with a lower survival chance behind? I could go on for a while so let's save this for another day, x. Cheers

[@mug8107]

This is the longest comment I’ve every seen on KZbin with actual text

[@matthewparker9276]

That's a rather utilitarian view of things.

[@jjkthebest]

Assuming that killing the 1 person or all the others are really the only two options, I don't see how anyone can defend not saving the many. Not doing anything doesn't magically absolve you of any responsibility. If all you need to do to save 20 people is press a button, then not pressing that button is equivalent to murder in my eyes.

[@matthewparker9276]

@@jjkthebest what would be your answer to the common parallel problem? The same trolley is moving down a track toward 20 people on the track. This time there is no switch, but you are on an overpass. With you is someone large enough to bring the trolley to a complete stop if they were to get hit. Do you push the other man onto the to save the 20 people?

[@NathanAMeyers]

@@matthewparker9276 I have a hard time getting to a concrete 'ought' with the "pushing someone to slow the train". I think its obvious that you should do it, but i also believe 2 other things. 1. Life is not certain, whereas this dilemma is. If I was 100% certain my actions would stop the train, it would be beneficial to sacrifice the 1 to save the many - well, at least that's the most defensible position since more likely i would selfishly let the 20 get killed if my only option was to kill my nan or something. I also do not know why those people were there or if they deserve to live on equal footing as any other human. This idea that humans are all worth the same amount is not true, but again, without knowing the important minutiae there the most defensible position is to assume they are equal. 2. I cant predict how people will react to my 'murder'. Ultimately, morality is defined as what actions bring about the best results. And although the well being of others is a factor, everyone is selfish towards their own well being. This means if i knew the world would throw me in prison for the 'murder' even though I know I saved the 20 people, I would choose not to save them. Thinking practically, the utility of martyrdom is only worthwhile if the satisfaction of doing so is enough to outweigh the costs - and I'd suspect they arent

[@syntaxerror831]

I think its important to realize that technology won't always benefit us. What might have been the trolley problem in the past will now just be the self driving car in the future. I think that yes, some suffering can and will be eliminated, but I don't think technology will be the thing to usher it in. Technology is a tool like any other and can be used for good and bad. Technology like nuclear weapons have made killing easier. Technology like carbuerators has made the environment better. I think to advance technology is to advance everything, the good and the bad. What matters is what we as a people do with that technology. There will always be accidents and there will always be moral dilemas. As technology has progressed, the dilema of privacy vs security has become ever more present in everyones life. Again, these are just thoughts on the matter right now.

[@sawyerkindt3809]

X seems like the kind of guy I could talk to for hours if we found the right topic

[@sighrelief]

xisuma, i really appreciate your channel. when i first found it, i was extremely afraid that many of your takes would be sort of the opposite of who you are. bigoted, hateful, etc. after watching a few, i've found you're actually a very smart person. I really appreciate you and your channel. Albeit i haven't watched everything, nearly all the videos i have watched have made me really happy you have this second channel, and i wish it was bigger. That said, i think this video in particular may miss the mark a bit. Being able to use technology to solve moral problems is a question we're going to have to be facing very soon, especially on the front of "predictive criminality" and things like it. Police states can and will use that kind of technology to seriously harm people. After all, the tools just do what they're told, but when the people writing them dont care to have the best intensions, come to find those systems have HUGE biases in how they carry out their work. it needs to be taken very seriously, and i'm not sure there will ever be a point i'd feel comfortable in a computer taking a moral choice for a person unless its a pre-determined one decided by a human or group of humans (such as what to do in the event of a brake failure in a self driving car, in a harsh example. I love technology, but i'm super uncomfortable with it being used, especially by governments like the united states. Secondly, our pollution rates are down, because developing countries actually require putting out that much excess co2 in order to even get to a point where they have the infrastructure that makes it better. this is one of the huge sociopolitical obstacles standing in the way of fixing global warming, as we're essentially denying currently developing countries the ability to enter the first world as we did before them, it's an unfair playing field. Third, i agree that technology has an AMAZING ability to produce excess, to end suffering, to liberate people, provide leisure, etc. even moreso as automation advances. However we're essentially already at that point. We produce more than enough food to feed everybody, we have more empty houses than there are homeless people, etc etc etc. Due to the way our system is currently organized, even if we continue to produce a ridiculous amount of excess more, there will always be a lower class who never gets access to this. (at least, as long as we organize in a hierarchical way on the basis of class) As for arguing people having to suffer to get there, i again do not think this is true. At least it didn't have to be. Technological evolution happens under every sociopolitical and economic structure that is able to provide the resources and development to have that advancement made at all. So, if anything, the less suffering there is in the world (the more people who have abundance, the more people who have the ability, the more people who are able) the better. I often think of this quote when talking about the subject: “I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.” - Stephen J Ghould You give people the means and they create. You should be very familiar with this as even a minecraft youtuber. Tons of people make mods, community resources, textures, etc etc etc all for the sake of community, rather than the sake of profit. They still monetize, but it's often not _for_ that monetization, and that's _within_ capitalism, in _spite_ of them having to spend their time and energy on an education or job to sustain themselves on top of it all. That's how much people care about giving to the community for... well generally everything. And if people didn't have to worry about meeting basic necessity, all the better. That means they're free to give to their communities in ways they and their community find valuable, rather than being forced to turn everything into a commodity to be bought and sold. > "you could almost imagine it, technology fixing something like world hunger" it's not a matter of technology having to decide who gets to eat, that's kind of a myth. We live in abundance, **currently**. there's no need to ration. at least, not in terms of _who_ gets to eat, but _what_ and _how much_ (which will always be enough to feed a person and feed a healthy balanced diet no less) > "who's to say the upward trajectory of tech is just going to stop somewhere" In terms of raw horsepower, this is a complicated question. computers have been getting more powerful because we're able to make transistors smaller and smaller, but once we begin to approach the molecular level we'll have to turn to alternatives to continue the trend, many of which may not work. Such as quantum computing, or on the software end, machine learning. It's not going to continue trending the way it is unless these things get better (that said, machine learning is, in fact, growing quite quickly and shows no signs of stopping soon, but it has generally different applications than raw horsepower. (i'm not a computer engineer, however. this is my layman and possibly false understanding) > "you're looking at it the wrong way, computers can fix the 1%" hypothetically, computers can provide apt solutions to the common problems of today. However, history is controlled by the powerful. You need to actually remove those powerful systems before they're replaced. Computers could, like, go on a civil war level conflict, but who would be controlling the computers? are they autonomous? where do they collect their information from? Likely, it's that very 1% who will be weilding that technology to begin wtih. Basically our entire system exists essentially to protect capital. Even you have to bring up something as simple as stealing bread as a moral dilemma. we're thinking in capitalistic terms here. > "if i were to steal food today, well there'd be no excuse for it yeah? i can afford it" No matter what the context, i think any choice anyone makes is the direct result of their material conditions, this includes scarcity, but it also includes having a history with scarcity, abuse, education, community, history, just a myriad of things. In today's context, i'd also say that even you could remain on the moral highground if you were to steal from a chain store like wallmart or something. They killed local business, they exploited their workers, they stole much more. I'm not particularly one for retributive justice, but ultimately it's not going to hurt a business like that, and they even account for it in their budgeting under loss. And no, it does not affect the employees working at that time (at least legally speaking, though i know a few stories where abusive bosses have extorted their workers to cover the loss under these circumstances, despite them not even having enough to scrape by at the time to begin with). But ultimately, yeah no matter literally any decision or choice someone makes, made sense in their head, in their context. That's one reason why reformative justice is so much more important than retributive justice, that and it just works better in terms of crime deterrence. > "there might be a thing where criminality or things like that could be corrected though medicine" **this is particularly gross to me** i know you mean well, genuinely, i do. But this caught me off guard. Ok, this may sound wack, but i'll be real with you; crime serves a functional purpose. It shows society where people's material conditions are failing. Making people complacent in their suffering can and will be a power that oppressive forces will use and abuse to no end, they already do with tactics like social engineering, propoganda, etc. It'll cause the status quo to become nye impenetrable and essentially make it so that people can't protest, retaliate, or speak up. Take a scientist for example. This really, actually used to happen; biologists would be short on bodies, and could not conduct their science because of it. Infact, it was illegal in many areas to conduct science on dead bodies. Due to this shortage, scientists would leave their labs and grave-rob in order to have bodies to find cures to illness, understand the human body better, etc. Call it gross, but i think they weighed it as a moral choice in their head and found it to be worth it, and i agree with their decision. To remedy this, the laws were changed, and now people can donate their bodies to science when they die. We cannot delete crime in people's heads, we have to remedy the context that causes them to do crime. You said it yourself, people often commit crimes due to the context of which they live. This includes mental illness too, at least non-genetic. Sure, i agree, we should cure genetic mental illness, and non-genetic, developed mental illness as well. But also know that if someone develops an illness like that, it's because of the context in which they live(d). Also to wrap up i would personally intervine in the trolly problem, especially if we're talking in terms of utilitarian most good vs most bad done. Most people would sooner kill, say, a shooter to save 20 people in a grocery store, it's just easier to dehumanize people like that. But honestly, i think anyone should be mortified if they ever actually have to kill a person, no matter the context. Not making a choice is also a choice. **TL;DR:** Generally my takeaway from this video is that you'd be right if you'd replace technology getting better with politics getting better. We already live in abundance, we're just not distributing it. and no, we shouldn't fix "undesirable" traits like crime.

[@Neoillia]

Why the hell did this have no likes or comments.

[@Clearsight314]

Wow, you literally wrote an essay in the comments. *respect*

[@isaiahkepner8078]

Wooow I actually read that

[@kachow-boitc6071]

The moral dilemma with technologies and the contrast with technologies is great as both seem to have a definitive answer but like the trolley problem where there's what if with the different people. Technology has a lot of what if's in certain aspects which makes us wonder if it will be use ethically correctly.

[@nestrior7733]

The question quickly becomes "What are we willing to give up for/to technology?" Especially your example of preventing criminality through medicine is a moral dilemma that cannot be solved through technology. It might very well become possible, but what are we giving up in the process? What constitutes a criminal act? Aggression? That can be in just a heated discussion. An affect triggered by intense momentary emotion? That one is characterised by the perpetrators having no control over and even memory of the deed. Intent then? I.e. "I'm gonna take this from them." That can just as well be your stealthy thief game/quest. These could be solved through A.I., but that would also mean implants monitoring our thoughts for context, even if it only acts when actual permanent (and intended) harm is about to be done. This rabbit hole goes even deeper, but it all returns to the original question: "What are we willing to give up for/to technology?"

[@leaf4836]

I've always heard the train thing as 10 strangers on one track and your best friend/mom/family member on the other track. You can flip the switch to one or the other and kill the strangers or the person close to you.

[@TheFriso1234]

The idea that technology will solve everything is also often used to support this first-world attitude that everything will be fine and we just need to wait for technology to solve things. It's often used as an excuse to not care or act on the suffering of others in less fortune places in the world. It would be great if technology would advance 500 years tomorrow, but what do you tell the people suffering today? Pursuing technology is not an excuse to sit back, and not take other actions.

[@fredriklofgren1791]

I found these videos yesterday and I love them! Great advice and very intresting topics!

[@aname8240]

Maybe in the future we can create technology that that makes the question irrelevant, but right now that question is relevant, answering the question with technology is the answer is like answering the question with "let's imagine that doesn't happen", you're not giving an answer, it's like being stuck on an island with cans of food you can't open and when asked what to do and saying "let's assume we have a can opener", you're just avoiding the problem entirely

[@rekrap2]

I know I his is more for podcast listening, but the max resolutions 360p for this video. Just thought I’d point it out.

[@bubblesmccarthy1069]

Poverty is a relative term and technology will make life better but it will not equalize people. In fact it often has done the opposite in the industrial revolution men like Rockefeller exasperated wealth inequality. It was only reigned in by government regulation, but the wealth floor went up and so did the wealth ceiling so it won’t eliminate poverty but instead make poverty less impoverished.

[@a13wastaken]

cool thing about technological progress is that it makes itself exponentially faster

[@cobalt7755]

In character with technology progressing and obsolescing these kinds of questions (as well as the mention of Star Trek) I think my answer would be that well, it’s the 24th century and all I gotta do is contact the fire department, tell them there’s people on the tracks that are unable to get off them and all they gotta do is lock onto them and teleport them out, or maybe I as the track operator have an emergency transporter pad and can teleport workers off the tracks or something

[@marxton_]

About the Trolley problem, I think the point of it is to assess whether our morals would do such things in a situation where we are to choose between life, and our moral standards. Whether technology evolves such way or not, the idea of the trolley problem remains symbolic and may come in different form today or in the future where technology has evolved. My answer to the trolley problem, is to save 20 people over 1. I believe in choosing the lesser evil among choices regardless of who these 20 people may be.

[@bobbersonpotatoe8229]

Technology sometimes can cause moral dilemmas for example if you were programming a driverless car, if it was going to drive into a group of people and couldn’t brake but the only way to stop it was to swerve into a wall on the side, killing the driver, what would you do? I think as technology improves we will find new moral challenges such as how would we deal with alien life or even the use of recreational substances

[@sjiht0019]

Yeah I agree! Although X's point here is that eventualy we would find technological solutions to those problems too. It's kind of dismissive of the point of the thought experiment but oh well

[@40-watt]

Heh, I just started watching The Good Place.

[@pixelatedfusion7801]

to the trolley problem just wait for it to kill them then hit it again and back up and then go foward again rinse repeat and now you're being charged for vehicular manslaughter.

[@nobodygnomes]

great as always, x!

[@ArfusLeonel]

Would you choose yes or no? Nobody: X: Technology!

[@NStripleseven]

Pretty much

[@NStripleseven]

filip Yeah, he doesn't. Also, why was this a reply to my reply, and not to the original comment?

[@alexxandaxros5429]

I LITERALLY Had this problem as my assignment in my philosophy class yesterday!!! YOU ARE AMAZING X!

[@Raffael-Tausend]

No thumbs down! Well done!

[@Closer2Zero]

One can hope that technology will push us towards lesser suffering and moral dilemma on day, but its not a sure thing as we often stand in our own way

[@Disko-wp2qn]

Hey x, I’m not sure if you will read this but this is more or less for anyone who reads this. There is another version of this riddle where you are standing on a bridge and many people could be run over by a train, and there is a big person who could stop the train if you push them onto the tracks. This would result in one casualty but one that you directly caused rather than flicking a switch to kill one person. What would your take be one this and how would you answer it.

[@40-watt]

You should talk about telling people to smile. For a long time, I’ve been taught to never tell someone (particularly a girl) to smile, but yesterday I asked a lot of people whether or not it’s wrong, and everyone disagreed with me. I honestly can’t believe anyone would be just fine with being told to smile, but now it seems like most people are fine with being told to smile.

[@Jason-yw2ow]

such an interesting view of the future X. always intrigued by your positive mindset. makes me hopeful :)

[@RamkrishanYT]

Love how most the comments are half a paragraph

[@Clearsight314]

Hey X! This is a little late, but I'm just now watching this. I found your thoughts on the subject to be very interesting- and I suggest you try reading Scythe by Neal Shusterman. It's a world where technology has literally eliminated all suffering. The world is ruled by an AI called the Thunderhead ("The Cloud" but more advanced) and if a person dies, they are just revived. It's a very interesting concept, and it is very much about morals and this incredibly plausible world.

[@joshsiddons7144]

This video really got me thinking - what will the world look like in 30, 40, 50 years? Will there really be any crime then? or will it be a lot worse because of the rise of quantum computing that could threaten current encryption?

[@AndreHFrank]

X, have you read "21 principles for the 21. Century"? If not, I definitely recommend that to you. It covers your monologue in a pretty good way. I enjoyed it. Keep up your work here!

[@jayusisu3220]

While I disagree with the statement, I understand where you’re coming from and I always enjoy listening to these

[@jayusisu3220]

filip it’s an Xbox one, found it when messing with my profile and liked it so used it as my KZbin one too

[@mihirx27]

Mind Field Season 2. VSauce. First Episode. Everyone, Please Watch it. It's worth it.

[@travcollier]

Technology is just the application of our ability to predict "if I do A, then B will probably happen". So, yeah, if we better understand the effects of actions, we can choose better actions. You got the trolley problem a bit wrong though. In fairness, there's a lot of different versions. IMO the most interesting is: Imagine there's a trolley hurtling down a track towards a group of people. You are standing by the track switch, and can flip it to instead send the trolley down a different line where it will just kill one person. Do you flip that switch? Now imagine you're standing on a bridge next to a huge fellow looking over the edge, and see the trolley heading towards that group of people. You could push that fellow off the bridge in front of the trolley causing it to hit him, but saving the group of people farther down the track. Do you push him? Most folks answer yes to flipping the switch, but no to pushing the guy off the bridge. That is relevant to your thoughts about technology... Technology (the switch) seems to insulate/detach people from the moral responsibility for their actions. Another interesting bit about how realistic or relevant this is. Well, for us humans it is pretty contrived. But for an automated system like a self-driving car... Programmers are literally having to decide what should happen in similar scenarios. eg: car suddenly detects a group of people, there isn't enough time for it to break, and it has to decide between running off the road at high speed (likely killing the driver) or plowing into the people. FWIW: I'd push the guy without hesitation, if I somehow could assess the situation and be highly confident it would work (that's the really unrealistic part of these scenarios... they don't account for uncertainty). But I know I'm not "normal" ;)

[@DarthMakroth]

This makes me think but I don't like thinking about stuff like this because I dont like thinking about death

[@snowcold5932]

I don't really see human to human violence ending unless inequality itself ends, and we're heading towards a more and more unequal future

[@JesusChrist42000]

I'll remember that when someone gets raped. I'll ask them if the rapist was miserable or suffering inequality. Next time someone is murdered I'll ask there family the same. This philosophy requires people to be inherently good. Our history and even today shows you it's not true. From hate crimes, to rape and torture. Was man miserable when he enslaved the first person? Was man not equal when he raped and pillaged. What of mass shooters? Or serial killers, or child molesters?

[@rudyerickson3830]

@@Ff-rr6uj most crime isn't for a days food

[@dee23gaming]

We will first fall into dystopian times for the next 50 years before anything becomes remotely utopian

[@FullPowerPillock]

I think the biggest question with some form of technological utopia is humans. For instance in cave man days relationships were based on the ability to provide and protect. And in current days most people will find attraction in others based on the same thing but more inline with money and income. It would be interesting to see how relationships form in a society without the basic human requirement of survival. Or if survival instincts are simply too deep in our own base program to ever be removed.

[@FullPowerPillock]

Well that’s assuming we have some sort of base programming. It’s possible that we are just very good at learning but that reality is incomprehensible. For example by using q learning it seems to take a number of days and a great many failures to simulate a baby taking its first breath while using a decent sized computer cluster. Where as humans do it within about 10 seconds of birth and at a extremely consistent rate. Which implies that even in situations where machine learning can succeed that it still implies that human learning techniques are able to learn things at least 50,000 times quicker than large computer clusters utilising machine learning.

[@oscart9558]

Loving the xisuma says content

[@Charlitics]

5:59 i'd argue humans are not 'naturally selfish', but rather our economic system incentivizes us to act in ways that appear to be selfish, solely to subsist. for tens of thousands of years we humans practiced mutual aid and helped each other to progress, etc. just a thought, love the vids

[@blubberwasser5105]

In germany you cant change the lane, it would count as you killed them, if your moral is higher than the law, you can switch, but you will get charged

[@PittCougar]

Vsauce (on youtube) did an experiment with real people on the trolley question. It was a very good episode.

[@Jake_Ritter]

My opinion: I think theoretically technology will get to the point that you described. That being said there are so many other factors like over population and finite resources that I think makes it an unrealistic vision. I get what you're saying but I don't think the time will come before something else throws us off the tracks.

[@dragonfires01]

i dont know if this wud be simular but 2 months ago..my breaks went out 100% i was only going about 15 mph but i cud not stop at the upcoming stop light where several vehicles were stopped i had to make a choice..crash into them and hurt someone or crash my truck into something...i seen no traffic in the oppisite lane and so i quickly turned into a car wash and headed right for a rock formed barrier wall...messed my front end pretty bad...but i didnt hurt anyone else but my truck amd a bit of the wall...the manager was on duty and i went in talked to him about damages

[@LuisFelipe-jb1bq]

I’d do nothing, they’re fault they don’t see the train and are standing on the track

[@audreylitteral5276]

X, I really love this analysis! I also do have a lot of enthusiasm and faith in the advancement technology. I'm also under the idea that even with the technology we have and will have, it's important to stay rooted and encourage kindness and community, because technology also allows people to do horrible horrible things. I disagree that eventually all crime will die out as technology advances, as there are some genuinely rotten people out there that kidnap, kill, molest, abuse, etc just for the heck of it or for personal gain, and are able to manipulate technology to help them do it and get away with it. I don't think that'll completely go away, and maybe I misunderstand what you were saying. But I do hope that the advancement of technology can help reduce the possibility of those types of things occurring (if that makes sense). I guess what I'm getting at is that technology may one day be able to give bread to the hungry so they don't have to steal, but I doubt that it will 100% stop the rotten folks from doing the truly horrible stuff as humanity is quite diverse. I look forward to seeing what we come up with and innovate. I look forward to new medicines and treatments that save lives. I look forward to people finally understanding that those who use technology and social media and such are still people and are able to witness and learn kindness. I hope that we never forget ourselves and our history either and where we came from.

[@diepie5144]

The way I've always heard the trolley problem was that there's a trolley on the tracks about to run over 4 people, but you could flip a switch and divert the train onto a track where it would only run over one person. The most common answer I've heard is "of course I'd switch it" since saving 4 people is better than saving one more recently I've heard a different version: There's a trolley on the tracks that will hit 4 people, but this time there's no switch, no diversionary track, only you and another person. So the question was not "would you let the trolley hit 1 person instead of 4", but rather, "would you throw the person in front of the trolley, killing them but also stopping the trolley". really goes into how people perceive actions, since in the first one it's often framed as the trolley killing the person, in this one it's *you* killing the person.

[@elirewasout]

Exactly. It really does change peoples moral mindsets, and their answers are quite interesting honestly. It's great that we are able to look into and explore these moral dilemmas.

[@mirteb.1788]

What if the safety robot thingy or those who operate it turn evil or dark(without knowing it) or 1984 like. Who decides what is dangerous. Is electrical mechanical engineering dangerous or educational? For example. Since humans would not need to do that anymore it could be declared too dangerous and the drones would prevent you from inventing. Also inventing would become a political act, and they could ban that political act in the name of safety.

[@Rdasboss]

Have you watched the good place?

[@SleepyzzzYT]

It reminds me of trial by trolley the card game

[@ricecake1228]

The question is will people accept technology? People are still not very tech-focused, they want result without process.

[@adamrezabek9469]

technology will never solve troley problem. They can only reduce the numer of time it happens, but i think that desicions like this will be necessary even if technology do big steps forward

[@NStripleseven]

It could eventually be that technology will not only lessen the effects, but also be the one to make the choice.

[@NStripleseven]

filip All I said is that it could. Also, you never know what the future will be like. After enough tests to ensure that the AI would make the correct choice, I think people might eventually trust it with that.

[@DorothyDiscocamp]

@@NStripleseven But who decides what the right choice is? Everyone is different and everyone had different opinions. If we take the trolley problem for example, one person could say that the trolley should kill the people on the tracks, while the other says that it should sacrifice someone else and save the people on the track. Technology doesn't have a moral; it gets one from programmers. Who decides what the moral is that technology has to follow?

[@NStripleseven]

Dorothy Discocamp I'm not sure, but what I will say is this: If humans aren't able to collectively decide what the correct choice is, are we any more qualified to make a choice than the AI would be?

[@DorothyDiscocamp]

@@NStripleseven I don't think we are any more qualified to make a choice than a machine, but humans are not held to the same standard as an AI. From humans we expect them to mess up and while we don't always agree with choices other people make, most of the time we can respect the choice they made. An AI on the other hand has a certain level of excellence attached to it. News articles about self-driving cars that are involved in accidents have a lot of weight to them. We as humans find it unacceptable that a machine made a mistake, which is why the coding of said machine is so important and that includes the moral dillema's.

[@cylo5264]

Everyone is caring about train speed but no one cares about how fast can a train stop and that is concerning

[@eomoran]

I don't believe that morality can solely be determined by the environment. Stealing food is wrong regardless. I think how severely it ought to be punished is what can be relative. The problem with stealing food is that you are stealing someone else's property which they traded their labour for in some form or another. It's not that it's moral to steal bread if you're hungry, we are just more understanding of it if you do it and are starving by means outside of your control

[@lavaking4665]

With that people wouldnt stand using medicine to remove criminals the better thing would be let them commit crime is a simulation that they wouldnt know was a simulation. therefore you could set it up to be so they would get caught and see whether they did good when they got out

[@TheFriso1234]

This whole argument also rests on an assumption that is made but not expressly stated. You are drawing conclusions you cannot draw logically from the premises. Since let's say 300 years ago, there hasn't JUST been an advancement in technology. If the only thing that had changed was technology, then your conclusions would be fine. But many things have happened, with probably the most important one being the increase in DEMOCRACY, and power held by the people instead of monarchs. The average human life hasn't improved significantly in the years before democracy and greater equal rights, but suddenly now there is a huge quality of life improvement. To say these things are unrelated is asinine, an what your premise tacitly assumes.

[@fedjenlion]

It's an interesting idea that technology may fix a lot of our problems but i'm pretty sure we already have the technology to actually do this already. I think the reason why it's not deployed in that scale yet is human greed. as long as there are people who think like "machines are expencive so the food made by them should also be expencive" we as a human species are very unlikely to ever get to that point of feeding every single person on the planet. So in conclusion i think we have the technology already but we lack the right mentality.

[@emoharalampiev1590]

I mean realistically even now a yes or no dilemma isnt really real. Like in the real world there are countless paths you can take. And as you gave an example people say what if people are old what if what if, but all that is just dodging the scenario, you gotta distance yourself from the real world where you have a lot more information to go by and a lot more applroaches to take, in the hypothetical dilemma that's all the information that exists and those are the ony 2 possible actions you can take. So I mean maybe it'll be harder to give examples to ask that dilemma if for future generations its inconseavalbe to have people be on traintracks, but the dilemma itself would never change.

[@idkwutnametouse]

Regarding the moral dilema most of the choice depends on the circumstances, not just age but also the environment in which they are in. If the 20 people are in a location with food shortages or water scarcity then killing 20 people would be objectively helping society, but if it’s under normal circumstances i would agree, snuff the old granny for 20 children to live

[@slickrick8279]

"You're waiting for a train. A train that will take you far away. You know where you hope the train will take you, but you can't know for sure. Yet it doesn't matter. Now, tell me why?" Well i wouldnt interfere into the big plan i made this opinion up after i saw bender from futurama fail at being a god He did interfere into the big processes too much and his inhabitants were relying on him until the two factions under him bombed each other with nuclear weapons Look up :"futurama godfellas 1/2" and 2/2 on youtube and you may see what i mean

[@buckyball2003]

A true story (I may not remember all the details perfectly but this is roughly how it went): There were some people in a lifeboat. There was no way that they could all survive and get home safely because they’d sink the boat as there were too many of them. The captain chooses to throw out the women and children on the premise that they are doomed anyway and the men who remain are stronger and more able to row harder so the remaining ones are more likely to survive. They do survive and when they get home, the captain is tried and found guilty of murder. Did the captain do the right thing?

[@buckyball2003]

I don’t know the details exactly but I think the idea is that they would have definitely died if the captain hadn’t done what he had.

[@buckyball2003]

I think I agree with you that he did the right thing but honestly I don’t think it _feels_ like the right thing. Does that make sense?

[@jackbonnell6058]

X, i don’t know if you read sci-fi type fiction books, but you might like the Scythe series by Neil Shusterman. It kinda talks about a lot of these ideas and makes great points on all of them.

[@jdgfshdjfkakahdkshfhdjdh]

What are the books called and how many are there? And (I may be asking a lot of questions here) what are they about

[@jackbonnell6058]

@@jdgfshdjfkakahdkshfhdjdh Quick break down: the books are "Scythe," "Thunderhead," and "The Toll." They take place in a futuristic setting where, at some point in the past, the "cloud" of the internet somehow evolved into the "Thunderhead," an AI. The Thunderhead set its own restrictions so that it cannot kill, and it is a benevolent being. The government's of the world all gave control to the Thunderhead 100-200 years before the books start. Thunderhead has since eliminated all disease, world hunger has been solved, there is complete peace, and death it self has been completely eliminated. Those who died re whisked away into revival centers and are alive again within 48 hrs. However, death is still a necessity for life, the population is growing out of control. An order of "Scythes" exist to eliminate this problem. Those killed by a Scythe experience a true permanent death, the Thunderhead cannot interfere with Scythe business to bring people back to life. The main characters in the series are apprentice Scythes. The books deal with religion, political undertones, and a lot of moral ambiguity surrounding death. Thats a basic breakdown for the series without revealing any spoilers, I loved the books and would totally recommend them to anyone who reads. www.amazon.com/Arc-Scythe-Boxed-Set/dp/1406393649/ref=pd_lpo_14_img_0/138-9932001-8129218?_encoding=UTF8&pd_rd_i=1406393649&pd_rd_r=335a1814-b7e0-4a4d-97f4-3f8ff79b3ad1&pd_rd_w=OjOFD&pd_rd_wg=4ioLg&pf_rd_p=7b36d496-f366-4631-94d3-61b87b52511b&pf_rd_r=JE9JZKRD4H0TDHWM64YA&psc=1&refRID=JE9JZKRD4H0TDHWM64YA This is a link to the box set on Amazon.

[@worldwithcuriosity148]

This is all pointless one day we will all die And all life will in the heat death of the universe 😭😭😭😭

[@worldwithcuriosity148]

filip i said heat death of the universe not earth By the way it’s just a joke it is going to take billions of years

[@PlacestobeVG]

Hi, I'm John Quiñones. This is What Would You Do. So tell me, why did you step in?

[@NStripleseven]

Lol

[@wingedtigress9752]

The train riddle always has my more murderous side going... I have no clue why I dislike the human species so much

[@NStripleseven]

Ok then

[@wingedtigress9752]

filip ight xD

[@derserequiem]

i love this discussion but also, there isn't even really a scarcity of food! have you seen that article that farmers in the us were throwing away and burying potatoes because of the economy and the pandemic? it's just that capitalism has had this sort of choke hold on everything that makes it inaccessible to those less fortunate and whatnot

[@andrewwunrow]

I agree that technology has helped alleviate moral dilemmas, and will continue to do so. However, technology has also brought great harm. The more comfortable people are and the less concerned they are with their problems, the more feelings of loneliness, hopelessness, and suicide go up. People are fallen, due to our sin, so there will never be a utopia in this life. The answer to the trolley question is this: “it depends”. If the twenty people are Christians and have already committed to following Christ, I would rather save the one. (The twenty people will be with God in heaven when they die, but the one will still have a chance to turn to God). If the roles are reversed, I would choose the other. An eternal perspective is necessary in this type of dilemma. It’s not an easy question to answer, because we don’t directly know what God’s will is for every single person. However, no matter what you choose to do, God can use it, whether it was the “right choice” or not.

[@liontack]

This talk reminded me of a Vsauce video on the trolley problem. For anyone who is interested, I'll link it here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z6TPZn6Aa56kn6M

[@ankhayratv]

You don't use the switch. They should not have been on the tracks in the first place, and the one "innocent" person chose the right track to stand on. If you use the switch you kill the one person. The 20 persons should die because they chose to stand on the track where the train rides. The only action you can do is try to get the group of 20 off of the tracks.

[@ankhayratv]

Any other additions to the question are irrelevant: convicted whatevers, your family or friends, babies or children ... it doesn't change the fact that they shouldn't be on the tracks where the train rides.

[@ankhayratv]

Oh, yea and autonomous cars: should never drive off of the street in avoidance of accidents. If you're on the street, you might be hit by a car, if you're on the sidewalk, it should be safe.

[@Neoillia]

The story is that they are tied to the tracks and cant move, so your entire solution is moot.

[@RebeccaOfTheForest]

X, mentally ill people are not criminals, and if you're talking about people with brain damage, those are not the same thing. Best regards, Tropical.

[@nuklearboysymbiote]

X what mod or program do you use to show "holograms" of what you're trying to build that helps guide you in-game?

[@jackbonnell6058]

Schematica

[@quantumpuddles7591]

X what I don’t think you understand is how awful humans are and how judgmental we are. If the food printer comes out the rich can only buy it, some give it to the poor but the poorest stay hungry. Real world example most food banks items and shoe donations that go to Africa go to the most the most prosperous areas, because it was never about helping it was about image and branding. We don’t even know where the poorest of the poorest live, because no company cared enough to check. You mentioned a crime pill. First we give it to the criminals, then anyone suspected of crimes, then children that misbehave. We won’t master it on the first try so there will be side effects. Even if we do master it some will argue that it’s racially motivated and some will argue its classist. People will say the have the right not to take it. The list goes on. Technology gets better, humans don’t .

[@siezethedayeveryday]

This is all true but what about hackers and stuff?

[@rudyerickson3830]

They (the good ones) can already to do some pretty crazy crap. Scary what might be possible in the future

[@moritzkoch1798]

I also like to imagine everything getting better with more advanced technology. Even to the point of space communism like they have in Star Trek. But that would require an overabundance of every good, and thats, even considering the wonders of modern and near future technlogy, unachievable. Still, if we managed to provide everyone with everything they need plus a bit more, as well as establish peace everywhere, all of us should be happy? (That would essentially be communism) Except, they wouldnt. Because we currently have a lot of people living by the 300 and something rules of acquisition. Those people will never settle for anything less than way more than everybody else has. Unfortunately, with wealth comes great power. So Earth is basically ruled by a bunch of Ferengi. Good luck establishing a system that even remotely resembles something utopian like we all dream of. But, I heard/watched/read somewhere that it is definitely possible to serve everybodys basic needs even with what we produce currently. In theory we dont even need to wait for the future to be able to solve 90% of every social problem we face. I wont give a source to that information, because it has been quite a while since I watched/heard/read that information and I dont remember where it was. Sorry

[@moritzkoch1798]

New conspiracy theory: Trumps hairstyle is actually to divert attention from his abnormally big ears because hes actually an alien from outer space... Its frightening that it makes sense if you think about it. Becoming the president of the US is exactly what a Ferengi would do to maximize profit...

[@mr.down-to-earth486]

WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THE TRACKS ANYWAY, JUST APPLY THE BRAKES?!?!?!?!

[@Neoillia]

the story is that they re tied on the tracks and the drivers dident see them in time, or cant see them.

[@jellyfish2603]

Maybe one day phone's will be eatable! Hehe

[@SilkArchitect]

i hope the future is as bright as you speak.. hopefully elon can really pull off turning us into cyborgs in 5-10 years he said a year ago? haha imagine. in a world full of cyborgs wouldn't the creative type flourish more than the sensible business men?? future landscapes are amazing to think of..

[@rudyerickson3830]

Until you get hacked

[@sandwich2473]

I ThIno What you're talkIng abOut Is The post scarcItY sOcIEtY. Also, ignore my random capitilisations, phone screen is half dead.

[@ethernel-8-336]

#VenusProject

[@billybobjimbobjim8007]

I’m gonna be honest, this video was about 15 minutes of you not really sufficiently answering the question. What might be is irrelevant when being confronted with a question here and now. Now in the end you did give an answer, but you had no real reasoning behind your answer. If you were to ask a utilitarian that question, they’d answer that saving the 20 and killing the 1 leads to the most happiness and least suffering, but your answer was just “I probably would in that situation”.

[@ouriceira]

Someone has been watching Neil deGrasse Tyson on Joe Rogan Podcast xD

[@loik1loik1]

First

[@loik1loik1]

Nobody sai first so i thought its my chance to shine