= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
taw comments on The Trolley Problem in popular culture: Torchwood Series 3 - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (86)
There have been many similar situations historically - food supply was more or less equal to food demand, so if food supply got suddenly lower for whatever reason, there wasn't enough food for everyone, and some people had to die.
The usual algorithm was that the poor people would be priced out of the food market, until enough of them died to restore Malthusian equilibrium. Most of the dead would be children.
How is that morally different from the situation described in the post?
I can think of a couple of differences:
The poor people during a famine at least have a fighting chance, if slim. Somehow, by hook or by crook, attain money or food, or leave for a region where there is no famine.
Also, a famine is a matter of public knowledge, which allows the possibility for a society to collectively (or fragmentedly) come up with a solution. In the torchwood scenario, [small spoiler warning] the true nature of the threat and the solution devised by the executive branch were being kept a secret. In fact, they were actively suppressing groups who were moving for alternative stances towards the alien threat. If it were public knowledge, the to-be-sacrificed class would at least have the option of revolting against the powers/system/'algorithm' which was mandating their extermination.
In the not-enough-food scenario, you have more bystander effect: the merchant doesn't necessarily feel like e's killing people by raising prices.