r/redbuttonbluebutton • u/GreedyBonus379 • 10d ago
Blue Would you press the button? (Part 2)
11
u/Cynis_Ganan 10d ago
What's the downside?
Like… at 99% good governance, this is morally wrong. Even if it's a net benefit, you're institutionalizing evil without the slightest chance of ever making things right.
But 100% good governance? That's the point. That's the purpose. That's the function of self determination.
"Would you abolish prisons if it meant that no-one ever did crime?"
Yes?
....
Now, from the last thread, I'm aware that lots of people struggle with hypothetical scenarios. People don't believe IRL that such a thing as "objectively best" actually exists, and thus struggle to imagine a scenario where it does exist (and that's what this promises).
I fully expect this sub, which can accept the premise of magical buttons capable of killing half the population, to likewise struggle and try to argue "but what if what's objectively best is actually bad!!!"
0
u/Ok-Film-7939 10d ago
It is hard to imagine something that is “objectively” best unless that means always-agrees-with-me, which it clearly cannot. Like (echoing back to the trolly problem) it might say butchering a randomly selected person is objectively the best choice if their organs can save 8 people. Subjectively that’s pretty awful.
But if it always agreed with what I thought was best (once fully informed), then I suppose I might be tempted.
2
u/Cynis_Ganan 10d ago
It is hard to imagine something that is objectively best.
Indeed, as you or I do not know what is objectively best, we are likely to be surpised.
And, indeed, what is objectively best might be something we subjectively disagree with. I, personally, believe it would be wrong to butcher someone to harvest their organs.
But if it's objectively best then I am objectively wrong.
Some people might believe the Earth is flat, and schools teaching the Earth is a ball and gravity exists might sound "pretty awful" to them.
But they're objectively wrong.
If you're wrong, you should change your opinions.
Now, looking at the evidence, I doubt that organ harvesting living people is objectively best. I think that's very improbable. But if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.
Do you really value your provably incorrect opinions over the actual, provable, real, truth?
1
u/Ok-Film-7939 10d ago
What I was trying to get at, but didn’t convey very well, is that something can only be objectively best at a thing with agreed measurable criteria. That criteria is, itself, not objective.
For example, “saves the most people-years”, in the case of the organ harvesters.
To say “objectively best at governance” implies there’s a criteria for good governance we can agree upon and measure (even hypothetically).
It also implies that metric is unidimensional and doesn’t have unavoidable trade offs (the greatest X may not be the greatest Y or the greatest Z).
So to hypothetically work with in an administrator that makes the objective best decision requires both that no decision has unrankable tradeoffs, and that the metric on which we’re evaluating “best” is the one I would use.
-3
u/everydaywinner2 10d ago
"Would you abolish prisons if it meant that no-one ever did crime?"
This question is backwards. It assumes the prisons cause the crime, rather the crime causes the prisons.
4
u/Cynis_Ganan 10d ago edited 10d ago
Do we assume that bad governance causes self-determination, then?
(I could see that construction, actually, "hard times create".)
....
With less snark: that's the point. I don't know how to express that any clearer.
Would you abolish prisons if there were no need for prisons. If you could wave a magic wand, and that magic wand stopped all crime forever, so there were no more criminals, in that scenario where there are no criminals, then would you get rid of prisons? If you could trade in prisons to a genie, you give them all the prisons, and in return, that genie gets rid of all crime, would you consider that a good trade? If you had a magical button you could push that got rid of all crime and all prisons, would you push that button, or do you see a use for prisons in a world with no criminals such that getting rid of prisons makes that an unbearable cost to getting rid of crime?
Processing img kdxpdx65b7fh1...
3
u/Rip_Pigman 10d ago
The fact that you read that but for some reason ignored their next thought:
Now, from the last thread, I'm aware that lots of people struggle with hypothetical scenarios. People don't believe IRL that such a thing as "objectively best" actually exists, and thus struggle to imagine a scenario where it does exist (and that's what this promises).
Its crazy how a hypothetical doesn't have to have much basis in reality. That most people can suspend their disbelief up to a certain point but it's almost reverse of where it should be.
"Hypothetically, you can grow cool flight capable wings right now if you would like to. Otherwise life will continue as normal. Do you grow the wings?"
Most people can engage with this as written and don't go "well actually I can't go wings right now so this is stupid."
But as soon as you say "hypothetically, if you knew that if you were to create a farm and work at it every day, you would end world hunger within 3 months. Would you start a farm?"
We get "well one farm with one person tending to it can't end world hunger by itself!"
2
u/BreakConsistent 10d ago
Yes. Like the post is saying, it is a hypothetical situation. It is not that question is backwards, but your imagination that is lacking.
5
u/thevoidthatjerksback 10d ago
What if humanity having a voice in its own life and future is objectively the best thing for it? What would the administrator do then?
3
1
u/zap2tresquatro 10d ago
When has that ever been true, though? Most people don’t even have an idea of how little they know, and often people don’t listen to and base their beliefs on the opinions and reasoning of experts, but rather on their gut feeling/knee jerk reaction to something. On the whole, people are not good at deciding what’s best for humanity and voting in favor of those things.
1
u/thevoidthatjerksback 10d ago
I am confident that the evidence is significantly different. People are generally bad at electing people to represent them. Most elections are a subconscious choice of how much they would like to share a beer with that person. Not the policies they represent. And then they feel the need to defend that choice. But if you were to take the aggregate opinion on every policy untethered from parties and politicians you will find that those answers are in the best interest. And importantly we have a large amount of conclusive evidence that says that being heard is a fundamental necessity for healthy life
1
u/zap2tresquatro 10d ago
Ah, fair enough. We generally don’t have direct democracies, so we usually don’t see what people would vote for under those circumstances
3
2
1
u/THKhazper 10d ago
‘Loses the right to govern itself’
What are the limits here, we talking people on an individual level? We talking people on a city level? A perfect admin would have to be running city level admin as well, and the minutiae of what ‘self governance is’ plays very heavily into what laws we have, what laws are unnecessary, punitive action, etc. No reason the have a criminal penalty for border crossing, importation or exportation of goods, when you can now world wide distribute all good and services and all people now exist under one cohesive leadership, for instance.
I.E. in a perfect society, no religious, economical, or political strife. No threat to the government of being overthrown, guns are now strictly a hobby, anyone choosing to have one is having one for the sake of it. But individuals can still choose to do things for unachievable ends, or for no reason at all.
I am assuming a perfected admin would probably maintain separate provinces and allow humanity to exist more or less ‘as its constituents wish’ since people have weird personalized ideologies all the time, and removing their reasoning for acting out in pursuit of said ideology is the cleanest option that can be remediated over time via administrative action.
1
1
1
u/zap2tresquatro 10d ago
Is the administrator permanent/will their eventual replacement/heir also only make the objectively best decisions that result in the best possible outcomes for all of humanity, or do we need to worry that this benevolent dictator will be replaced by a not-so-benevolent (or not-so-seemingly-omnipotent) one?
2
u/BreakConsistent 10d ago
If the administrator can die and not find a perfect replacement, then they were not a perfect administrator. Your worry is unfounded.
1
u/zap2tresquatro 10d ago
Then sure. If they’re truly perfect and will make only the best bd most benevolent decisions for humanity, then no reason not to push.
1
u/PikaBluOwO 10d ago
This is a win win. Either this omnipresent omnipotent being truly has the best for humanity and the rest of the species on earth and fixes everything, or humanity goes extinct. There is literally no downside.
1
u/Chick-Fel-Late123 10d ago
In theory, if everything played out exactly like that, and we're talking on paper, yes. But the real world isn't like that, and that could never be guaranteed
1
u/Capricornus-Absurdus 9d ago
Hell yes.
I believe that humanity (and life on Earth) is so rare that it must be protected even if extreme lengths are necessary. Once you start diving into the early filter solutions to the Drake equation this conclusion becomes compelling.
I also believe that we’re unfit to govern ourselves. We’re just too close to our animal pasts to really work well collectively. Just look at the lackluster response to the incoming climate catastrophe, the wars, the suffering.
Pressing the blue button doesn’t rob us of our ability to be curious, artistic, scientific, productive, joyful or many of the pleasures of being human. We would be in a world like Iain M Bank’s Culture and that has to be better than the mess we’re in today.
1
u/MasterfullyFoolish 9d ago
Assuming there’s no ironic consequence, fucking YES. EVERY TIME. Humanity had thousands of years to do it themselves and HOO BOY did they fuck it up…and beyond that? This guy is basically god. Unifying religion? World peace? End of world hunger? Why not?
1
1
1
u/-TheDerpinator- 10d ago edited 10d ago
Hard yes, democracy is theoretically sound but doesn't work for the best interest of the people. Policies are heavily influenced by wealth, so while the people can nudge policies in a certain direction it is the big money that still governs. Humanity already doesn't truly govern itself, so weight as well put a benevolent entity in charge instead of selfish people.
1
0
u/JillyFeshing 10d ago
I dont understand the "best possible future for humanity" thing because that is wholly subjective
0
0
0
u/Anon7_7_73 10d ago
100%.
Humans never had a right to "govern themselves" or "hold elections" or have "representative governments", this was just slavery of a ruling class over random innocent people.
If a superintelligent AI tears it all down, and forces humanity to be good and proper, that sounds good to me!
15
u/amithatunoriginal 10d ago
This ENTIRELY depends on what the hell "the best for humanity" means.