From: Matt Mahoney (email@example.com)
Date: Wed Feb 04 2009 - 08:09:10 MST
--- On Tue, 2/3/09, Charles Hixson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> Matt Mahoney wrote:
> > ....
> > What's not so clear is whether the outcome is good
> or bad. It is like asking whether you benefit from a
> teleportation device that makes a copy of you at your
> desired destination and slowly crushes the original to
> death. It depends on how you define "you".
> Why in the world "slowly"? Unless there's
> some required reason, then any device that slowly tortures
> someone, anyone, to death *HAS* to be considered unethical.
> It doesn't matter whether it's you or not.
How fast do you have to be crushed to death before teleportation becomes ethical?
Oops, wrong question...
How fast do you have to be crushed to death before 51% of the population considers teleportation to be ethical?
Suppose for US$100 you can buy a ticket that will instantly take you any place in the world. You have done this hundreds of times without incident. Now a new option is available. For an extra fee, you are offered the "painless" option, where the booth is filled with a narcotic knockout gas before you are slowly* crushed to death over a 24 hour period behind soundproofed walls. What is the maximum amount you would pay for this option?
*It has to be slow because the teleportation industry saves money by using a smaller motor with a low gear ratio.
-- Matt Mahoney, email@example.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat May 18 2013 - 04:01:10 MDT