From: Lee Corbin (lcorbin@tsoft.com)
Date: Sat Jul 26 2003 - 20:14:36 MDT
John Clark reminds us that most SF situations are contrived
> In 1936 you would know that Hitler was a very bad person but the trouble is
> you would not know that very soon he would cause the death of 30 million
> people; nor in 1936 would you know if incinerating the German capital would
> lead to something even worse than Hitler by demonstrating to the world
> 9 years early that nuclear weapons are possible and practical.
Of course. I am disappointed that some on this list refuse to
deal with the real implications of *hypothetical* situations
but instead yield to the urge to lecture me on the difference
between reality and hypotheses.
> Even today I don't know.
Ah, finally some substance! Were the *hypothetical* situation
that I, the time traveler were near Berlin in 1936, indeed I am
quite confident that I would know what to do. But others have
spoken of killing Hitler as early as 1923 or even as a child,
which is IMO not taking historical complexity enough into account.
Eliezer wrote
> Yes, ethical questions like "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as
> a five-year-old?" are very much along the lines of "Why don't you buy the
> winning lottery ticket, 1,5,31,38,47,3, and feed starving children with
> it? It would just cost a dollar! What kind of heartless bastard are
> you?" The uncertainty is the *whole point*.
Yes, that's exactly right, and it would be nice if the discussion could
move to there. I first want everyone to admit that indeed they would
buy such a lottery ticket---and then we can proceed to follow Robert
and estimate our probabilities. You didn't appear to get the point of
the scenario.
Moreover, estimating probabilities like those, and weighing megadeaths,
involves very interesting reasoning. One's mathematics must be guided
so much by other considerations---such as overall judgment, experience,
tradition, principle---that I do join those who worry about "hyper-
rationality". I'm far more likely in most scenarios to trust the
judgment of someone with a good track record who, on the one hand
is prudent and careful, and on the other hand can indeed make hard
choices when necessary, in preference to hundreds of subordinates
with calculators and computer programs modeling overly complex
situations.
> As for the North Korea nuclear weapons situation, yes it is very serious,
> but I just don't see a military solution. For one thing it's too late, they
> already have the bomb, but even with just conventional weapons a new Korean
> war would be the biggest bloodbath since World War 2. It is estimated that
> North Korea has the ability to fire 10,000 heavy artillery shells into
> Seoul, a city of 10 million people, every 20 seconds.
Well, it's facts like these that I would hope my "most able administrator"
to have studied long and hard before making his decision. Or rather,
their decision, because I am sure that part of making good decisions
is taking into account (to a limited degree, of course) what plenty of
other wise people have to say.
Lee
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jul 26 2003 - 20:22:44 MDT