Could you elaborate what you are analysing here? If I dont misinterpret the model, the option where you dont double the victims minimizes deaths every time.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

Ah, but then you're giving the opportunity to the next guy to kill even more, if he wants. Most people obviously won't want to do that, but a rare few will, and the body count gets so big so fast that it only takes a few switches before that's a bad risk.

I was expecting a bigger number of switches, but I guess that's just another example of humans being bad at tracking the consequences of large quantities.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

But if you assume that such a person exists, then it is inevitable that someone will pull the switch. The very best case is that such a person is immediately after you. Therefore, the only minimizing choice is to kill however many people you have.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Oh, I see. Yes, the context here was that we assume all possible chain lengths. If it's infinite the death-minimising strategy is obviously to pull it, and if your switch is the only one you obviously don't. The question was where it changes from one to the other.

I'll edit a clarification in.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Makes me wonder what happens when the number of people tied to the tracks exceeds rhe number of people currently alive. Should be around the 33rd lever.

[–] archiotterpup@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think you're on the right track.