I find it more likely that there is at least one person down the line that will pull the lever than that there is absolutely no-one for infinite people in line (ignoring real population limits) that will pull the lever.

Given that the choice is now 1 vs more than 1, the ethical choice is to pull the lever.

[–] Mutelogic@sh.itjust.works 19 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I found the lever puller, guys!

[–] WhiteBlackGoose@programming.dev 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I know who we're putting the first one on the rails!

[–] twelvefloatinghands@lemmy.ml 7 points 1 year ago

"Died saving 20 Quadrillion people"

Best epitaph

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

There's an interesting thought.

What if the limit was just a small/medium sized town?

Surely with a smaller group there must be some hope that everyone in the chain will make the right choice.

How big of a population would you need to switch from "hope everyone is good" to "I need to flip the switch, because someone is almost certain to later when more lives are (literally) on the line"

And how stressful would it be to be right at the edge of those two choices?

[–] odium@programming.dev 1 points 1 year ago

With no limits, there's always the risk of a suicidal psychopath deciding on extinction.

[–] cryoistalline@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

That person down the line is probably thinking they can pull it now and kill a lot of people or someone even farther down the line is going to pull it resulting in the death of a huge amount of people