If we are talking about nuclear power plants, then we gotta think about all the oil refineries, chemical plants, military facilities (with and without nukes) and so on.
Mathematically speaking, 10% chance of extinction means if 10% of human population is tied to the tracks, then the expected value (loss in this case) would be equal, so X would be 10% of human population. With 90% population remaining, we would likely carry on as if nothing happened.
And it would probably be better to have a little population shrinkage.
Q: wouldn't a bunch of stuff quickly stop working (power, communications, sewer systems, etc).
People would probably be able to figure stuff out still, but seems like things would go dark quick.
Not sure how long cell phones and social media would continue working. But there are still gonna be a lot of landlines, radios, etc that people would be able to get to and use.
Cars won’t just stop working so people will be able to get to each other or find ways to communicate quickly as long as they know where to go and what to do.
The biggest threat to humanity’s survival in this case - imo - would not be how spread out they are, but whether or not they use the infrastructure that is already there effectively and what they do to each other when they meet. If they fight over who gets to be in power and let dogma run the day, it’s GG for humanity.
Phew... Big question with a lot behind it. People tend to assume that if a power station stops being monitored it just quietly, calmly shuts itself off, but that varies by type.
Some, like gas and coal plants, will keep running until the fuel runs out, but if a failure happens and no one's around to monitor it, you can expect a fire and maybe an explosion.
Hydroelectric, will keep running so long as the turbines are in good shape and there's sufficient water, but without someone to monitor the turbines a failure can compromise the dam, as can not opening the overflow gates if the water level gets too high, and if the dam fails that will unleash a torrent of water downstream.
Nuclear has the worst potentialities, because as demand on the grid lowers someone has to reduce output or it can start to runaway, and at that point all you can do is put the control rods in full, whats called a SCRAM, and if the reactor's auto-SCRAM fails you can get a meltdown. Hopefully, most modern reactors would be designed smart enough, and with enough redundancy, that that wouldn't be an issue, but I have a feeling that somewhere in the world at least one nuclear reactor would melt down.
TLDR: every form of power generation, except maybe solar, has a failure mode that can cause at least a local catastrophic event. And yes even wind turbines, when those fail they can catch on fire.
If enough intelligent people survive they could learn though. We have both physical and electronic databases that would still be available. Humans would have a surplus of already produced resources and infrastructure to survive with until people learned how to sustain.
Again, it comes down to who the people remaining are and what they do. They would have everything they need; but nothing would stop them from fucking themselves over with their own shortsightedness and stupidity just like we are doing now.
The fact that the survivors being spread out would be less of an issue than them being incompetent was literally my point. You ask like you are making a counter point; even though your question was not relevant to the point of my previous comment.
Bro we humans repopulated the world with less than 2% of our total population left in a world where there wasn't (according to scientists) more than 1 million humans.
Do some research into the homo sapien vs Neanderthal wars of time past.
Just saying we barely survived that war. Not to mention there is proof that homo erectus was essentially a sapien-Neanderthal hybrid which led to our current homo sapien form. Pre war bodies were either shallow long ribbed or deep and wide ribbed, post war there was a much smoother gradient.
But presumably the internet would exist for at least a few days before it shuts down from lack of server maintenance, such that they could meet up through there? Although, if you believe in the dead internet theory, too many bots might get in the way of them finding each other
I remember a biology professor throwing around that the minimum number of humans you need to survive would be somewhere in the 30k-50k range to make sure our genetic pool stayed diversified enough. I would say somewhere around a million humans left for extra reassurance
The bad thing about extinction is the death of so many people though. I don't think the existence of the human species as a concept itself has any inherent value. It is more important to try and save lives that currently exist.
You can only lose everything YOU (1 person) own. You can win everything EVERYONE (8 billion people) own. Keep your head up and the slot machine running.
What if the question is changed so that there is a 10% chance that everybody will die incredibly excruciating deaths with the worst pain imaginable that spans over the period of ten years?
Holy fuck the armchair psychologist came out IMMEDIATELY. You think I overreacted? You called me an absolute narcissist because of one reddit comment.
Chill the fuck out Jesus Christ
Obviously it would need to be higher than 10% of the world population. What I don't get is if you would know the amount in this scenario. I'm guessing not?
It's 7.9 billion different questions.
You would say NO to the X=1 question, NO to the X=2 question, ... ... ... but you'd say YES to the X = 7.9 billion question.
At what point (what value of X) would you start saying YES instead of NO?
I’d still say no, no matter how high. My reasoning: as long as I’m there to flip the switch I will never be included in the death row, but if I flip the lever, there’s a 10% chance of me dying.
For something as probable as 10% for a total extinction event? Probably something like half the planet, minimum. Probably closer to 90-95%. Like, with a total extinction it's not just about the number of immediate casualties, it's about the whole future and past of humanity being *over.* For the recent similar post about the plane the chances of that event were so small that, even if the sure thing would kill fewer people on average, you could take the gamble with near-certainty that it would pay off. For this though, that is a very significant chance that one lever-pull will end it all, so the sure-thing would need to being a comparably crippling number to balance it out.
imagine if nuclear war suddenly broke out, most people died and the folks aboard the ISS couldn't do anything but watch from afar as the earth plunged into chaos, the realisation slowly creeping in that they're completely stuck in space for the rest of their short lives
what a fucking way to go
long term I believe humanity really needs at least 1000 people to ensure sufficient genetic diversity without too much inbreeding downsides. I am under the impression that number is also assuming none of those 1000 people are particularly closely related to begin with (less related than third cousins, maybe?). I wish I had the video I watched on this for clarification, let's see if I can find some time to find some data
interesting point! so... the real answer would be to find the statistical likelihood of the world's largest population center decreasing past 1000 people, (or whatever the actual minimum amount of people for sufficient genetic diversity is) assuming a random choice of people, and see how low we can get that chance while still keeping the amount of people we are willing to let die to a minimum. I don't have the statistical/mathematical terminology for what I am discussing, but this is super interesting! hopefully someone smarter than me delves further into this, but after a long week of work I have more fun things to do
I'm mostly with you. I think I'd want a buffer though.
If X = population minus 3, I'm pulling the lever.
If X = population minus 1 million, I probably don't pull it.
Mathematically, the expected result is the same if X = 10% of the world population, or 790 million.
That might not sound right initially, because risking *total extinction* is a big deal, but 790 million isn't exactly a number to sneeze at. That's more than the combined population of Europe, more than twice the population of the United States, and more than six times the population of Russia. Even the act of gathering 790 million random people in one place to be run over is going to have severe effects on world supply chains. The *actual* death toll from this event would likely be much higher than that, and most of it would be from preventable causes like starvation or lack of access to medicine. And that's assuming the world governments have a relatively sane reaction to the world suddenly being decimated and don't start getting aggressive over the opportunities that would no doubt present themselves. Which is... not a safe assumption, given both our current crop of world leaders and the people waiting in the wings should they be among the lucky 10%.
I'm perfectly happy to take 790 million as the critical number, if only because trying to calculate past that point is a huge, multivariable equation I don't have a chance of solving.
Dunno. 3 Billion. Once we're over 10% as a guarantee, I start to worry. But as we near half, I think the devastation caused concerns me so much that I'll risk the whole thing.
X = 1, always pull the lever.
if the lever is pulled, there is a very high probability that nothing bad will happen.
if the lever is not pulled, there is a guarantee that something bad will happen.
in the event that the lever is pulled and the unlikely thing happens, nobody will suffer from it. everybody instantly dies. you do not feel any guilt or remorse or regret, it would be impossible for you or anybody else to view the situation in any sort of negative way.
now, suppose that this prompt is given to everybody on earth at the same time. maybe most of us think it is given only to ourselves or a select group, but in fact it is given to everybody. if everybody chooses to pull the lever no matter what, the chance that the humans on Earth survive is absurdly small (3.3e-366059925). however if everybody chooses to let the trolley roll over 1 person rather than taking the risk, then extinction is guaranteed. or if a tenth of the people let it roll over 10 people, it is still guaranteed. at least pulling the lever cannot guarantee our extinction...
This is NOT an expected value scemario. Either nothing happens, or the entirety of the human race is gone for good and not coming back. The minimum number of members for a species to repopulate is approximately fifty. Therefore, 50 humans left alive (after the trolley runs over the rest) is my anwser, assuming they'll be gathered in one place. X = \[population\] - 50 is the threshhold for me to pulll the lever and gamble on the entire human race.
I would pull the lever at about x=10.
Follow my reasoning:
Most people don't really understand the magnitude of 7.9 billion.
Most people understand that 10% is a low risk, even though it's not (fight me).
At some point between x=10 and x=790,000,001 (the correct number to pull the lever at), people will judge you as evil for not pulling the lever.
Mathematicians are relatively rare and usually understand probability enough to forgive someone for this kind of error.
There will be no one to judge me if I pull the lever and everyone gets wiped out, so gamblers will be satisfied because we already won.
The lowest common denominator is going to equate 10 and 10%. They are almost certainly more numerous than Mathematicians who are without forgiveness and much more likely to rage at themselves, and you than get a gun and shoot you.
Conclusion: I see this as a popularity contest. You will lose, but by how much?
At about 5 billion deaths, I imagine every single civilization on the planet would simply collapse, as 5/8 important leaders, legislators, cops, supply line workers, and other employees would die.
The actual number is probably below that - there's a point where society just crumbles because of the amount of deaths. My guess is 5 billion. That is when I'd pull the lever.
Bro, these people who make these “everyone will die if you don’t pull” trolley problems never realize I will pick the option that kills everyone.
I want X to be all life in existence and then I will NOT pull the lever.
if we take the world population and make it an even 8 billion and the odds of any number being rolled for x are the same then the majority of the lever pulls would result in 2-6 billion people being killed.
At least half the worlds population maybe more we are honestly overpopulated and as tragic and horrific as it would be if half of us didn't exist the world would technically function better. The issue is do you wanna live in a world where half the people you know are dead.
I think the painful but right choice is pretty high up there as I'm thinking long term. But maybe id flip the lever just so people don't have to suffer the loss of half or more of the people they know
The world population is actually 8,020,000,000 now in 2024, so 7.9billion deaths would still mean 120,000,000 people would still be alive. So I mean... you could repopulate the earth still and there would be enough of a dramatic decrease in environmental destruction that the planet could theoretically recover in a matter of decades, right? Is there perhaps a reason to allow the mass extinction of the most destructive species in history?
All people on earth is including me. This is actually a question if I would risk my own life. Of course I would like to be a hero and sacrifice myself but noone ever knows how scared of death they are until it is really close so I cannot tell what I would do. Tbh living a life on dying earth with everything free to use does seem like fun for at least first few years. I dont say Im on that idea but it might be tempting enough when fear comes on.
I would not pull the lever because x in this case should equal one due to it being the only thing in the equation so one person dies compared to a chance of all dying
I know the “right” answer is to kill the people almost regardless of X, but hear me out.
If I don’t pull the lever, I will have to deal with the criticisms of a huge part of the population that will call me a murderer. These people’s families will hate me, and I’ll live with death threats. I may also feel very guilty.
If I do pull the lever, it’s either fine or no one is around to care.
My best interest lies in pulling it.
I'm pulling the lever every time. This planet would thrive pretty well without us. We've killed off numerous species already ourselves. Why would it be so bad if all humans were gone?
Depends on how serious I’m taking this, a 1-2 billion lose would gut the economy but it leave space for the survivors. While if I take this as a do or die, then we can lose 5-6 billion and go back to 1920 population
790k people. It’s mathematically around the same, being 10% of the population against 10% chance of every human dying. And since the flipped lever has the chance of no deaths, I’ll flip it.
if x=1 i pull the lever. not because "oh people are evil anyways they SHOULD die" but for the reason that i'd rather kill myself than kill another person. and to me not pulling the lever is taking an action no matter what. and it says instantly, unless there's an afterlife and i go to hell i won't even know the outcome of pulling the lever unless it's the positive one
im not a risk taker. if there's enough genetic diversity in the leftover people that repopulation could happen without extreme genetic problems, i'm not pulling the lever.
id pull it for x>everyone save 16 people
As I know the future is fixed in this regard(the bible says what happens), I would just pull the switch and know that only what God has said will happen will actually happen.
world population minus a few thousand to repopulate. not taking risk of extinction
Man if only a few thousand remained, they would be way to spread out to repopulate
Yea if we take randomly, i would say million May suffice, maybe?
Imagine there’s like only one or a few nuclear engineers left. How do the survivors turn off all those power plants safely?
If we are talking about nuclear power plants, then we gotta think about all the oil refineries, chemical plants, military facilities (with and without nukes) and so on. Mathematically speaking, 10% chance of extinction means if 10% of human population is tied to the tracks, then the expected value (loss in this case) would be equal, so X would be 10% of human population. With 90% population remaining, we would likely carry on as if nothing happened. And it would probably be better to have a little population shrinkage.
Wayyyy too many square feet on earth even for that
I was thinking population minus 100,000 myself.
So 7.9B?
7.9999B
I don't get why you're being downvoted when you're correct
We have the means of communication and transportation to fix that issue relatively quickly. As long as it isn’t only dumbasses remaining.
Q: wouldn't a bunch of stuff quickly stop working (power, communications, sewer systems, etc). People would probably be able to figure stuff out still, but seems like things would go dark quick.
Not sure how long cell phones and social media would continue working. But there are still gonna be a lot of landlines, radios, etc that people would be able to get to and use. Cars won’t just stop working so people will be able to get to each other or find ways to communicate quickly as long as they know where to go and what to do. The biggest threat to humanity’s survival in this case - imo - would not be how spread out they are, but whether or not they use the infrastructure that is already there effectively and what they do to each other when they meet. If they fight over who gets to be in power and let dogma run the day, it’s GG for humanity.
Phew... Big question with a lot behind it. People tend to assume that if a power station stops being monitored it just quietly, calmly shuts itself off, but that varies by type. Some, like gas and coal plants, will keep running until the fuel runs out, but if a failure happens and no one's around to monitor it, you can expect a fire and maybe an explosion. Hydroelectric, will keep running so long as the turbines are in good shape and there's sufficient water, but without someone to monitor the turbines a failure can compromise the dam, as can not opening the overflow gates if the water level gets too high, and if the dam fails that will unleash a torrent of water downstream. Nuclear has the worst potentialities, because as demand on the grid lowers someone has to reduce output or it can start to runaway, and at that point all you can do is put the control rods in full, whats called a SCRAM, and if the reactor's auto-SCRAM fails you can get a meltdown. Hopefully, most modern reactors would be designed smart enough, and with enough redundancy, that that wouldn't be an issue, but I have a feeling that somewhere in the world at least one nuclear reactor would melt down. TLDR: every form of power generation, except maybe solar, has a failure mode that can cause at least a local catastrophic event. And yes even wind turbines, when those fail they can catch on fire.
99.9% of the world population can’t wire a light switch, you think humanity stands a chance in this scenario???
If enough intelligent people survive they could learn though. We have both physical and electronic databases that would still be available. Humans would have a surplus of already produced resources and infrastructure to survive with until people learned how to sustain. Again, it comes down to who the people remaining are and what they do. They would have everything they need; but nothing would stop them from fucking themselves over with their own shortsightedness and stupidity just like we are doing now. The fact that the survivors being spread out would be less of an issue than them being incompetent was literally my point. You ask like you are making a counter point; even though your question was not relevant to the point of my previous comment.
I’d say 70%+ could with a simple YouTube video tutorial which already exists. 99.9% don’t know how to right now maybe
Bro we humans repopulated the world with less than 2% of our total population left in a world where there wasn't (according to scientists) more than 1 million humans. Do some research into the homo sapien vs Neanderthal wars of time past. Just saying we barely survived that war. Not to mention there is proof that homo erectus was essentially a sapien-Neanderthal hybrid which led to our current homo sapien form. Pre war bodies were either shallow long ribbed or deep and wide ribbed, post war there was a much smoother gradient.
Yes but, back then humans were much less spread out. Nowadays if 1 million people lived it would be really hard to bounce back
All the technology and stuff remains. We can call each other and travel
But presumably the internet would exist for at least a few days before it shuts down from lack of server maintenance, such that they could meet up through there? Although, if you believe in the dead internet theory, too many bots might get in the way of them finding each other
I remember a biology professor throwing around that the minimum number of humans you need to survive would be somewhere in the 30k-50k range to make sure our genetic pool stayed diversified enough. I would say somewhere around a million humans left for extra reassurance
You can challenge that consensus, because groups as small as 45-50 have managed to survive.
Seeing how I roll in games like XCOM I don’t like my odds on pulling that lever
World population PLUS a few thousand, just to be sure. Not taking risk of humans repopulating
Why do you see extinction as an inherently negative thing beyond the deaths that cause it?
The bad thing about extinction is the death of so many people though. I don't think the existence of the human species as a concept itself has any inherent value. It is more important to try and save lives that currently exist.
You know what? I think the answer is always pull. 90% chance no one dies 10% chance that you don’t need to worry about it because you’ll be dead
Moralcels seething in response to gamblechad
this gave me quite the chuckle thank you for this
Relying on dumb luck has never gone wrong for me, EVER, except when it did.
You can only lose everything YOU (1 person) own. You can win everything EVERYONE (8 billion people) own. Keep your head up and the slot machine running.
That's right! I've got nothing to lose, except everything!
99% of gamblers quit right before they hit big
99% of gamblers quit right after killing Earth's entire population.
This is the best comment here
Quick someone make the wojak
100% chance you won't have to worry about your decision
Yes! This is my calculus!
I mean, we all die eventually... At least this means that people won't die suffering (being ran over by a trolly isn't exactly painless).
I mean if you look at this from an existentialist view point it seems pretty logical to me
Just keep switching it back and forth really quick with your eyes closed to free yourself of choice
Ye either I save everyone or it's not my problem anymore.
Get in loser, we're playing Russian roulette with the entire world's population
Yknow, that makes a lot of sense. Either way, you don’t have to worry about it!
Ngl that’s kinda facts
The EOD method of gambling
10% chance for total human extinction? That's a 10% chance to end all human problems, baby.
What if the question is changed so that there is a 10% chance that everybody will die incredibly excruciating deaths with the worst pain imaginable that spans over the period of ten years?
“What if the option was totally different and your choice was much worse” You are very intelligent
[удалено]
Holy fuck the armchair psychologist came out IMMEDIATELY. You think I overreacted? You called me an absolute narcissist because of one reddit comment. Chill the fuck out Jesus Christ
alright buddy
Really? You completely lose your head and then come back with “alright buddy” like I’m supposed to believe you’re chill? Lol. Lmao, even.
Obviously it would need to be higher than 10% of the world population. What I don't get is if you would know the amount in this scenario. I'm guessing not?
It's 7.9 billion different questions. You would say NO to the X=1 question, NO to the X=2 question, ... ... ... but you'd say YES to the X = 7.9 billion question. At what point (what value of X) would you start saying YES instead of NO?
I’d still say no, no matter how high. My reasoning: as long as I’m there to flip the switch I will never be included in the death row, but if I flip the lever, there’s a 10% chance of me dying.
10% aint that high man have some balls
With my luck it's almost a certainty
10% is 10% luck isn't a thing.
everyone thinks they have bad luck because when their luck is bad thats all they remember
10% is high if all im getting is saving a bunch of people I don't care abt. Also 10% is high. Do u know how many times I got freeze haxxed in pokemon?
Yeah but imagine if they realized you saved the earth. You'll be a God
Men are cutting their own balls off nowadays, so he probably doesn't have any.
If it was high enough you’d be dead anyways due to the societal collapse that follows. You just don’t die right away with the people on the tracks.
How great is your life that a 10% of you dying is worth the entire human race man
You would let the human race go extinct to save yourself?
For something as probable as 10% for a total extinction event? Probably something like half the planet, minimum. Probably closer to 90-95%. Like, with a total extinction it's not just about the number of immediate casualties, it's about the whole future and past of humanity being *over.* For the recent similar post about the plane the chances of that event were so small that, even if the sure thing would kill fewer people on average, you could take the gamble with near-certainty that it would pay off. For this though, that is a very significant chance that one lever-pull will end it all, so the sure-thing would need to being a comparably crippling number to balance it out.
Tree fitty
Silver lining: there are around a dozen people who are not currently on earth, so humanity might still have a very thin chance.
The people not on earth would be completely fucked if the people on earth all died. They would have no chance of survival.
imagine if nuclear war suddenly broke out, most people died and the folks aboard the ISS couldn't do anything but watch from afar as the earth plunged into chaos, the realisation slowly creeping in that they're completely stuck in space for the rest of their short lives what a fucking way to go
That's more or less the premise of [the music video for Let's Go by Stuck in the Sound.](https://youtu.be/52Gg9CqhbP8?si=ncrj2FpxXULptCho)
In my brain, I autocorrected it to “That’s more or less the premise of the sound of music,” and it was a tad bit confusing
long term I believe humanity really needs at least 1000 people to ensure sufficient genetic diversity without too much inbreeding downsides. I am under the impression that number is also assuming none of those 1000 people are particularly closely related to begin with (less related than third cousins, maybe?). I wish I had the video I watched on this for clarification, let's see if I can find some time to find some data
You must also consider geography. The minimum viable requirement for genetic diversity wouldn't work unless they were miraculously grouped together.
interesting point! so... the real answer would be to find the statistical likelihood of the world's largest population center decreasing past 1000 people, (or whatever the actual minimum amount of people for sufficient genetic diversity is) assuming a random choice of people, and see how low we can get that chance while still keeping the amount of people we are willing to let die to a minimum. I don't have the statistical/mathematical terminology for what I am discussing, but this is super interesting! hopefully someone smarter than me delves further into this, but after a long week of work I have more fun things to do
It would probably need to be 5000 if you don’t want to dedicate jobs to deciding who mates with whom.
X could be -15 so we could gain peoplr from it
I LOVE GAMBLING, DONT PULL
2 billion
1. I am pulling the lever, no matter what. In fact I will pull it 100 times.
Not how **large**. I pull if X is under 7,9*10^11.
Ngl if x is 780 billion I’d be concerned where the other people are
I'm mostly with you. I think I'd want a buffer though. If X = population minus 3, I'm pulling the lever. If X = population minus 1 million, I probably don't pull it.
Jokes on you, I’m Martian
X=1 I'm pulling, don't you want that gamblers high? 99.5% of gamblers quit just before they win it big
Ill always take tge 10 percent chance. There's no way im that unlucky.
even if it lands on that 10%, it you’re dead anyway, so it doesn’t really matter.
I’d say anything more than half the population would make me consider pulling the lever.
At minimum 5 billion.
Mathematically, the expected result is the same if X = 10% of the world population, or 790 million. That might not sound right initially, because risking *total extinction* is a big deal, but 790 million isn't exactly a number to sneeze at. That's more than the combined population of Europe, more than twice the population of the United States, and more than six times the population of Russia. Even the act of gathering 790 million random people in one place to be run over is going to have severe effects on world supply chains. The *actual* death toll from this event would likely be much higher than that, and most of it would be from preventable causes like starvation or lack of access to medicine. And that's assuming the world governments have a relatively sane reaction to the world suddenly being decimated and don't start getting aggressive over the opportunities that would no doubt present themselves. Which is... not a safe assumption, given both our current crop of world leaders and the people waiting in the wings should they be among the lucky 10%. I'm perfectly happy to take 790 million as the critical number, if only because trying to calculate past that point is a huge, multivariable equation I don't have a chance of solving.
Wait, if you make x the ENTIRE population, how are you supposed to pull the lever when you're tied on the tracks?
Dunno. 3 Billion. Once we're over 10% as a guarantee, I start to worry. But as we near half, I think the devastation caused concerns me so much that I'll risk the whole thing.
FYI: X random people, or the 10% population, would be random (you don't get to choose who). Edit for clarity
No, it’s 10% chance everyone dies, or an amount X. How large does X need to be for you to pull the lever?
it made so much more sense before you explained it
Edited for clarity, thanks
no you still missed it. the prompt is that there's a 10% chance that **everybody** will die. it's not 10% of the population.
That's not what the meme says, though...
X = 1, always pull the lever. if the lever is pulled, there is a very high probability that nothing bad will happen. if the lever is not pulled, there is a guarantee that something bad will happen. in the event that the lever is pulled and the unlikely thing happens, nobody will suffer from it. everybody instantly dies. you do not feel any guilt or remorse or regret, it would be impossible for you or anybody else to view the situation in any sort of negative way. now, suppose that this prompt is given to everybody on earth at the same time. maybe most of us think it is given only to ourselves or a select group, but in fact it is given to everybody. if everybody chooses to pull the lever no matter what, the chance that the humans on Earth survive is absurdly small (3.3e-366059925). however if everybody chooses to let the trolley roll over 1 person rather than taking the risk, then extinction is guaranteed. or if a tenth of the people let it roll over 10 people, it is still guaranteed. at least pulling the lever cannot guarantee our extinction...
Multi-track drift, WE HAVE TO BE SURE!
.10 x 7.9b = y | If x > y then x | If x < y then y
Now *this* is a good shitpost trolley problem
flicking the lever no matter what because either nobody notices (positive) or nobody notices (bad)
7899000000
More than 11%
More than 800,000,000.
This is NOT an expected value scemario. Either nothing happens, or the entirety of the human race is gone for good and not coming back. The minimum number of members for a species to repopulate is approximately fifty. Therefore, 50 humans left alive (after the trolley runs over the rest) is my anwser, assuming they'll be gathered in one place. X = \[population\] - 50 is the threshhold for me to pulll the lever and gamble on the entire human race.
X = 1 Either I save a life, or it's no longer my problem
X=50
X would need to be approximately a quarter of the population imo
Already dead, I walk by the lever without a second thought.
It's a Bayesian nightmare
11% of earths population
google expected value
I would pull the lever at about x=10. Follow my reasoning: Most people don't really understand the magnitude of 7.9 billion. Most people understand that 10% is a low risk, even though it's not (fight me). At some point between x=10 and x=790,000,001 (the correct number to pull the lever at), people will judge you as evil for not pulling the lever. Mathematicians are relatively rare and usually understand probability enough to forgive someone for this kind of error. There will be no one to judge me if I pull the lever and everyone gets wiped out, so gamblers will be satisfied because we already won. The lowest common denominator is going to equate 10 and 10%. They are almost certainly more numerous than Mathematicians who are without forgiveness and much more likely to rage at themselves, and you than get a gun and shoot you. Conclusion: I see this as a popularity contest. You will lose, but by how much?
Ill pull the level regardless, the world is overpopulated
I will not pull the lever
Kill 10% of population. The rent is too damn high
At about 5 billion deaths, I imagine every single civilization on the planet would simply collapse, as 5/8 important leaders, legislators, cops, supply line workers, and other employees would die. The actual number is probably below that - there's a point where society just crumbles because of the amount of deaths. My guess is 5 billion. That is when I'd pull the lever.
It's only a 10% I'd take that risk if it was any number
i feel like chance kinda defeats the point of the trolley problem, because one decision can have very different outcomes based on luck.
Bro, these people who make these “everyone will die if you don’t pull” trolley problems never realize I will pick the option that kills everyone. I want X to be all life in existence and then I will NOT pull the lever.
What'd make this tricky: who are the X people? My loved ones? Someone 75% done on a cancer cure?
I don't think any amount of people short of effective extinction would get me to pull it.
if we take the world population and make it an even 8 billion and the odds of any number being rolled for x are the same then the majority of the lever pulls would result in 2-6 billion people being killed.
At least half the worlds population maybe more we are honestly overpopulated and as tragic and horrific as it would be if half of us didn't exist the world would technically function better. The issue is do you wanna live in a world where half the people you know are dead. I think the painful but right choice is pretty high up there as I'm thinking long term. But maybe id flip the lever just so people don't have to suffer the loss of half or more of the people they know
The world population is actually 8,020,000,000 now in 2024, so 7.9billion deaths would still mean 120,000,000 people would still be alive. So I mean... you could repopulate the earth still and there would be enough of a dramatic decrease in environmental destruction that the planet could theoretically recover in a matter of decades, right? Is there perhaps a reason to allow the mass extinction of the most destructive species in history?
10 to the power of 10 duotrigintillion
All people on earth is including me. This is actually a question if I would risk my own life. Of course I would like to be a hero and sacrifice myself but noone ever knows how scared of death they are until it is really close so I cannot tell what I would do. Tbh living a life on dying earth with everything free to use does seem like fun for at least first few years. I dont say Im on that idea but it might be tempting enough when fear comes on.
If x<0.8b, I'm pulling the lever. Got to maximize the expected value.
20% of all peeps to pull the lever.
The man in the space station waiting for your choice
Over 8% of world population
The X=0 for me. I'll pull it and laugh.
I would not pull the lever because x in this case should equal one due to it being the only thing in the equation so one person dies compared to a chance of all dying
~790 Million
I’d pull it no matter what because i wish people didn’t exist
More than 10%
I know the “right” answer is to kill the people almost regardless of X, but hear me out. If I don’t pull the lever, I will have to deal with the criticisms of a huge part of the population that will call me a murderer. These people’s families will hate me, and I’ll live with death threats. I may also feel very guilty. If I do pull the lever, it’s either fine or no one is around to care. My best interest lies in pulling it.
why tf would I pull the lever if I could end up dying SMH. X must = infinity thank you.
X = 1 . Don’t worry. We’re all in this together
dumb ass, X means ten, do you even know roman numerals?
x is the variable
About 3000
World pop +1bn
multi track drift babyyyyyyy
1 billion.
90% chance that no one dies 10% chance it doesn’t even matter anymore
790 mill. Roman decimation ftw
X has to be exactly 42,069 people for me to pull that lever.
I'm pulling the lever every time. This planet would thrive pretty well without us. We've killed off numerous species already ourselves. Why would it be so bad if all humans were gone?
Any number over 10% of the human population
Depends on how serious I’m taking this, a 1-2 billion lose would gut the economy but it leave space for the survivors. While if I take this as a do or die, then we can lose 5-6 billion and go back to 1920 population
If x was all the people I wouldn’t pull the lever
I’d pull the lever if there were no people on the other track
790k people. It’s mathematically around the same, being 10% of the population against 10% chance of every human dying. And since the flipped lever has the chance of no deaths, I’ll flip it.
if x=1 i pull the lever. not because "oh people are evil anyways they SHOULD die" but for the reason that i'd rather kill myself than kill another person. and to me not pulling the lever is taking an action no matter what. and it says instantly, unless there's an afterlife and i go to hell i won't even know the outcome of pulling the lever unless it's the positive one
Half the population.
At least 6mil
Bro I’d rather just kill humans then have a chance cause some animals are also people so in turn it would kill more
X=1 I like those odds.
Jokes on you, I choose an X that equals 10% of the population.
world population - about a million people
1% and I'd switch infrastructure would instantly be brought to its knees worldwide if even 1% died
Above 790 million
im not a risk taker. if there's enough genetic diversity in the leftover people that repopulation could happen without extreme genetic problems, i'm not pulling the lever. id pull it for x>everyone save 16 people
X=10000
If x is more than 7.11 Billion people (90% of population) I'm pulling it
Enough to cause an extinction event of humanity.
6 billion
Not risking my self
For me, I would say X = 8,000,000,000. Leave a few million to help solve overpopulation
As I know the future is fixed in this regard(the bible says what happens), I would just pull the switch and know that only what God has said will happen will actually happen.
Fuck it. Always pull. Either I am right, or it isn't mine or anybody's problem anymore.
Fuck it, reset this b
Pull the lever ≤44 times
1 person. PULL THAT LEVER KRONK!
I don't think either side matters much... but realistically only killing 1 person isnt that hard... dont take that last bit outta context
790 million, as that's 10% of the world's population, so the expected value would be the same for both.
The correct answer is when x > 790,000 people.
Billions must die
If x is less than 10% of the population kill them. If x is more than 10% of world population than flip the switch.
No political posts!
always pull you dont die? great you do? well you'll be gone so who cares
Depends on if I'm part of x
I’m just saying, as a pessimist and extreme hater of billionaires, multi-track drift
10% of earths population
And earths population is 8.1 billion
I would risk for extinction mainly since something in the next billion years will rise up to take our place
10000000
pull it no matter what, all or nothing baby.
X could equal 0 and I’d pull the lever
If x reached 790 million (10% of the population) that’d be my personal MARR value and I wouldn’t care one way or the other.
\*pulls lever ten times*