• spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    6 个月前

    Correct, I have this expressed with the line:

    Track 3 promises no death at all, but if collaborative action fails, track 2 wins due to a more cohesive bloc and everyone has to watch their children die.

    • Aqarius@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      6 个月前

      …This, honestly, sounds like less of a trolley problem and more of a prisoners dilemma. As in, if everyone enough people defect, you get track 2, if enough people don’t defect, you get track 3, and track 1 is if it’s in between.

      Of course, the problem, then, is that it would imply the people aiming for track 2 will defect, people aiming for track 3 won’t, and people aiming for track 1 would try to convince people not to defect, while defecting themselves.

      • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 个月前

        You’re not wrong. Especially with the fact that copious capital goes into political campaigning from all sides; it’s kind of like a prisoner’s dilemma where the prisoners can communicate—for a price but both tracks 1 and 2 are well funded by corporate interest while 3 is just kind of left to fend for itself.

          • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            6 个月前

            I mean tbf given the original intent of the creator any use of the experiment aside from pointing and laughing at the stupid idiots who the two decisions represent is a misuse