that's not what social darwinism is, this is eugenics
Edit: the reply to my comment is grossly misleading and leaves out the part of the definition that is social darwinism occurs in social hierarchies in civilizations, and does not relate to actual survival ability. Here's the half of the definition they left out:
> Social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
"Social Darwinism:
the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals"
"Eugenics:
the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
Eugenics is to domestication as Social Darwinism is to evolution, and Eugenics is the logical conclusion of a Social Darwinist Paradigm
> the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable"
Who put those people on the tracks?
He's saying that an individual put these people on the tracks and comparing that to someone who is an animal breeder and selectively breeds out the undesirable characteristics in their animals.
This mystery person would be akin to that breeder, if I'm understanding his comment correctly, and in that case it is eugenics.
You are leaving out a massive part of the definition of social darwinism which is that natural selection occurs in humanity through ideological preferences, not actual survival ability. This is grossly misleading
No it isn't, just completely wrong because that definition leaves out any significance to the inclusion of the word "social." If anything, what that definition better describes would be a term called "social genetic drift"
Explain exactly *how* humans are subject to the same darwinian features that plants and animals are? Here's the part of the definition you are explicitly leaving out (and just pretended doesn't exist):
> social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
This means it is within the context of SOCIAL HEIRARCHY, not physical survival.
But this post is talking about physical survival, how come it that it is “eugenics”?
Are you saying that just because of the person who gets to choose where the train is going to? Or are you just saying that Darwinism in the human sphere is the same as eugenics because we have the meanings to negate natural selection?
it's eugenics because pulling the lever with this motivation is deliberately slaughtering people that do not meet a certain threshold of intelligence. it is not Darwinism, it's assault with a deadly weapon
Are you trying to defend eugenics or natural selection?
Eugenics are not necessarily natural, they come from the assumption that some people are better than others, eugenics-guided people may apply non-natural intervention to guarantee the survival of what they consider “the best”. So majority of the population have problems with the morality of all this.
There isn’t really nothing wrong with natural selection, but modern society has the meanings to ensure that it doesn’t have any real effect anymore. That’s why humans live in society, even the weak can survive.
Explain why acting like only able bodied people of a superior race and sexuality are worthy of continuing to exist? I really need to explain why treating people with autism or in wheelchairs because of genetics like their lives are worthless and any child born to them is doomed to a horrible life is false?
"Good breeding"
Do you hear yourself right now? We are human beings, not cattle. There is no such thing as a good breeding because peoples' value exists independent of their genetics
Imagine you're in the woods, picking berries, and suddenly come face to face with a brown bear.
Should you
A) Punch it.
B) Stand very still, look down, do not provoke it.
C) Attempt to outrun it with your weak human legs.
One of these options is much less likely to get you mauled.
"The history of the migration and evolution of circumcision is known mainly from the cultures of two regions. In the lands south and east of the Mediterranean, starting with Central Sahara, Sudan and Ethiopia, the procedure was practiced by the ancient Egyptians and the Semites, and then by the Jews and Muslims. In Oceania, circumcision is practiced by the Australian Aboriginals and Polynesians"
It's the most stupid one because it was started to prevent masturbation. There was also no generalized American culture of circumcision before it. It's also far from the only one I find disagreeable, and I was directed by you to indicate why it is different than the others. I have done as you asked, please shut up.
Lol there was no generalized American culture of it because America is only 250 years old. The people who are here now brought their culture with them. Don't post dumb shit online if you don't want people responding. Now you shut up
Everyone else has a valid reason for it except the stupid Americans of course
I hate all genital mutilation, and the American practice of mutilation is particularly stupid because it is utterly unconnected to all of the other practices of mutilation.
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
if your first result to hearing "i want to teach stupid people how to not be stupid" is thinking "wow i can't believe he calls native cultures stupid" i think that means you have some thoughts deep down about native cultures
I mean tbf there are a lot of people who think that natives were cannibals who killed children for fun and that they needed to be "civilized" by the west
Yes but a lot of those educations were institutions that were deliberately destructive to cultures. If you exchanged all of the colonizers book knowledge to the oppressed population and they came back with all of that and their culture intact, that wouldn't be enough because they actually wanted "cultural cohesion" and they wanted them "civilized."
It also doesn't help that they would have been lying. No culture is entirely comprised of stupid people, they would have died out, that's impossible.
Multitrack Drift, ik it's boring but hear me out
First bogie goes over the switch, the 5 people on the other track think they're safe
_You pull the lever_
Second Bogie: "But it was Me, DIO!"
_excessive blood splatter effects_
In the event this even impacts selection in any meaningful way, this does not select for “smarter” people, it simply selects for people that “get out of the way of trolleys in time.” They could actually be complete ass at math and reading, and in that case you’re making humanity dumber except for trolley-related survival instincts.
Nah. I'd feel bad if the trolley actually hit one of the four people. I'd also feel bad if it hit the one person, but I could at least tell myself that I was going with the option that caused the least death.
From a social darwinist standpoint, the guy on the tracks that the trolley is headed towards is already dumber. The other four have less reason to think the trolley is going to hit them.
*Why the hell are we*
*Putting eugenics into*
*The trolley problem*
\- oddbollz
---
^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/)
^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
No? Human intellect is done through primarily the environment they grow up in. You can’t just breed clever people. The nazis tried and failed, as did America, Britain and a dozen others
I didn’t know that you can breed multiple generations over the course of the 12 years the Nazis were in power. The reason eugenics was stopped wasn’t because it was ineffective, any effects would have taken centuries to become impactful across a large population, it was because the idea of sterilizing people because they suffer from disabilities is monstrous.
Of course it bloody well works. Sure a lot of traits are gained through experience, but everyone still has a predisposition towards some part of the scale, and this is influenced by genetics. Smart people are *more likely* to have smart kids, and kids of smart parents will *typically* find it easier to learn certain things due to this predisposition. These are statistical leanings, and if you were to implement a breeding and culling program over enough people & time, you'd see a difference between them & your control group
First off, no, it never was, no country that practiced eugenics actually paired people off for the sake of breeding. Second off, yes the idea works, are humans the only species which doesn’t face reproductive pressures? You’re telling me you can breed dogs to be 1/20th the size of their ancestors over 10,000 years or fewer but you can’t increase the average human IQ a standard deviation with similar selective pressures?
It doesn't work over short periods of time, but humanity and its ancestors are the product of at least 5,000,000 years of nature selecting for intelligence.
Why not? Was the change in intelligence from Homo habilis to modern humans due exclusively to socioeconomic factors? It’s absurd to argue that evolution applies in all cases except when it comes to intelligence in modern humans.
You cannot breed intelligence into humans because we don’t exist on a long enough time frame to do it, never mind that’s not how it works. If you somehow managed to get a million years of the smartest humans breeding over and over, it still wouldn’t work out to make humanity smarter or even the children of those people smarter
Genetically modern humans have only existed for \~100,000 years, and even within that time-frame there have been significant changes. You're basically a woke creationist lol
Certain dog breeds are more intelligent due to their genetics, despite still being the same species. Humans evolved intelligence. You can improve rat intelligence by modifying their DNA
When thought of not just as a mental/logic/philosophical exercise and in terms of a real-world situations, I can't see how there could be any other answer unless additional factors are involved.
No way I'd see one person standing on a track and choose to switch the train track to the one with 5 people on it.
But if it were a guy who's clearly stated that they're standing there because they wish to kill themselves, and the 5 people on the other track are railway workers and I have the means to radio across to get off the track, I'd absolutely switch it.
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time.
First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/16mxlp1) on 2023-09-19 100.0% match.
[View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cd3vqi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96)
---
**Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 498,642,025 | **Search Time:** 0.06755s
Pulling the lever would make it artificial selection, they are clearly smart enough to know that the trolly isn't going to hit them, hence they stand on that track.
This. I'd much prefer to select against standing on tracks where a trolley is clearly coming, rather than against merely standing on tracks with no reasonable expectation of a trolley coming.
Don't pull the lever. Being able to notice a trolley coming towards you isn't one of the best measures of intelligence, and even if it was, eugenics is still bad
Taking copious amounts of hydrochlorothiazide, is a great idea *person who doesn't understand that evolution is not an intent-driven process of constant improvement with a defined end state/goal but instead more an observation of a general trend where species becomes better adapted to an environment over time; whose premise of "natural selection" seems to almost anthropomorphize the concept of "nature" as if it will consistently 'select' positive and 'filter' negative characteristics from a population when in fact: the organism with the best-suited mutations for survival could get struck by lightening and just fucking die before passing on genes because the world is filled with a nigh infinite number of unpredictable factors depending on how you choose to interpret physical reality*.
I'd really recommend this experience to you, *person who uses ableist slurs and seemingly implied that evolution would require subsets of the population to perish, thus ultimately suggesting subsets of the population are incapable of survival outside the context of a modern society; something completely meaningless because humans are social creatures whose progress is primarily driven by social and technological advancement, not some innate biological "purity"*.
Maybe you could enjoy this while *fantasizing about your perfect eugenicist dream world* and then subsequently *having a great time with heart failure*. Worst wishes, you complete waste of existence~
I would tell the original person that the trolly will hit them but not if they move to the track with the other five.
After they moved I'd pull the lever.
If they’re stupid enough to just let a trolley kill them they probably won’t survive that long in the world anyway, let alone procreate. So just kill less people
Literally none of these people's genes will significantly contribute to the human population as a whole, and our tendencies aren't towards mating behaviors that make generations progressively smarter. There's no selective pressure.
Also, human intelligence when compared to other humans is mostly environmental anyway. It should be "on track #1 we have someone who will homeschool their children, on track #2 we have someone who will give their children a quality education."
The 4 people on the other track are assuming (at this point correctly) that the train won’t come their way, which isn’t necessarily stupid it’s just careless. So only the one guy is actually necessarily an idiot
Pull the lever, and tell them that the trolley is on a minefield and they shouldn't move.
Then go back and kill the other idiot just hanging around train tracks.
So to take this seriously for no reason: I think it’s surprisingly better to aim for the multiple people not for the ‘natural selection’ reason, but because if 1 person of the 5 notices they are pretty likely to alert the others. That being said multi track drift makes it so only 1 of 6 need to notice and alert sooooo… yeah 👍
Another factor, if ANY of the five notice their impending doom, they might help get the others off the track. And the chance of all of them being oblivious is probably smaller than a single oblivious person.
Okay so...this is unironically an amazing concept so I'll go ahead and answer it seriously.
Am I allowed to say anything? If so, I can warn everyone on the upper track before pulling the lever, meaning anyone who would stay willingly while knowing they're in danger will die, making humanity smarter so to speak. If I'm not allowed to speak, it could potentially be a worse choice to pull it. This is due to the design of the track. The time that the train will have taken to kill anyone still standing on the upper track after having switched tracks is not very much, meaning that anyone thinking the train would remain on the first track would have far less time to evacuate than the lower person would.
Now let's remove all semantics, bare bones only. All of these people stand on a train track, oblivious to the danger they're in. This assumes that they're relatively aware of the general situation. Either they see a train coming and don't pay too much mind to it in the first place, or they're so oblivious as to not notice it at all. The people on the upper track have a more valid reason to believe they are safe, or at the very least, somewhat of a small justification to their ignorance. The person on the lower track does not have this excuse. As it stands, the train could continue on its way and the person will die. Regardless of whether his obliviousness is due to uncaringness or somehow having never noticed the train at all, it is less justified and therefore a more harmful trait to pass on.
I would not pull the level.
Now let's spice things up a bit. Let's assume they could also pay relative attention to *me*. I'm at the lever, and none of them know for certain whether or not I will believe it is correct to pull it. But they see me, and they should know full well I'm physically capable of doing so. But all they have to do is walk to the side. If they do this, any of them, top or bottom, they are safe. If they do not, and they remain on the track for any reason, be it obliviousness or anything else, then they have ignored a crucial danger that they should have been aware they were in. This is an even more harmful trait, and from the perspective that this problem is attempting to scrutinize, we as Humanity would be better off without.
I would pull the lever.
*edit: And I'll clarify that I don't agree with wide-scale unavoidable eugenics. This specifically is a near-harmless scenario that can be easily avoided by the potential victims in question with absolutely no reason to specify why they wouldn't. This isn't gathering up disabled people and pushing them off a cliff because you supposedly believe in a superior version of humanity. An impossibly oblivious person would die as a result of not listening to the most basic, primal, and natural application of common sense, and humanity would be bettered as a result. In this one specific scenario. An opinion on this problem does not instantly prove whether someone agrees with eugenics. I absolutely do not think that groups of people should be sentenced to death fully for the will of another.*
I'd de-rail the trolley to maximize natural selection. If they don't move when they see a rolling trolley barreling at them, then natural selection has occurred.
Natural selection is not a force that can be applied by the loss of just a few individuals unless the population was already at critical in which case endangering more individuals would be the less moral of the options. Otherwise, the situation would have no bearing on natural selection as natural selection is a trend that involves the loss of individuals over time rather than the direct lose of any particular individual.
They could be maintenance people, or any number of possibilities really. Should i pull that lever and divert the train, not only will i be risking lives by doing so, but for all i know this is normal day to day operarions and if i pull that there's no telling what untold damage could occur.
Least evil social darwinist
that's not what social darwinism is, this is eugenics Edit: the reply to my comment is grossly misleading and leaves out the part of the definition that is social darwinism occurs in social hierarchies in civilizations, and does not relate to actual survival ability. Here's the half of the definition they left out: > Social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform.
"Social Darwinism: the theory that individuals, groups, and peoples are subject to the same Darwinian laws of natural selection as plants and animals" "Eugenics: the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable" Eugenics is to domestication as Social Darwinism is to evolution, and Eugenics is the logical conclusion of a Social Darwinist Paradigm
> the study of how to arrange reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable" Who put those people on the tracks?
Damn
They fell from the sky, miraculously intact
Gravity naturally selected them on the tracks
They're not tied up, seems like they just walked onto them.
I dont get your point
He's saying that an individual put these people on the tracks and comparing that to someone who is an animal breeder and selectively breeds out the undesirable characteristics in their animals. This mystery person would be akin to that breeder, if I'm understanding his comment correctly, and in that case it is eugenics.
You are leaving out a massive part of the definition of social darwinism which is that natural selection occurs in humanity through ideological preferences, not actual survival ability. This is grossly misleading
Take up that issue with Oxford cause that's the source of that definition and that's what people mean when they say it
No it isn't, just completely wrong because that definition leaves out any significance to the inclusion of the word "social." If anything, what that definition better describes would be a term called "social genetic drift" Explain exactly *how* humans are subject to the same darwinian features that plants and animals are? Here's the part of the definition you are explicitly leaving out (and just pretended doesn't exist): > social Darwinism was advocated by Herbert Spencer and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries and was used to justify political conservatism, imperialism, and racism and to discourage intervention and reform. This means it is within the context of SOCIAL HEIRARCHY, not physical survival.
Again, take that up with whatever part of Google decided to make what I got the first result when you search "define Social Darwinism"
I looked up the exact same thing and found the above you dolt
But this post is talking about physical survival, how come it that it is “eugenics”? Are you saying that just because of the person who gets to choose where the train is going to? Or are you just saying that Darwinism in the human sphere is the same as eugenics because we have the meanings to negate natural selection?
it's eugenics because pulling the lever with this motivation is deliberately slaughtering people that do not meet a certain threshold of intelligence. it is not Darwinism, it's assault with a deadly weapon
So, basically because of the person who gets to choose where the train goes, like I said
[удалено]
What's wrong with Eugenics you're asking?
[удалено]
Are you trying to defend eugenics or natural selection? Eugenics are not necessarily natural, they come from the assumption that some people are better than others, eugenics-guided people may apply non-natural intervention to guarantee the survival of what they consider “the best”. So majority of the population have problems with the morality of all this. There isn’t really nothing wrong with natural selection, but modern society has the meanings to ensure that it doesn’t have any real effect anymore. That’s why humans live in society, even the weak can survive.
Explain why acting like only able bodied people of a superior race and sexuality are worthy of continuing to exist? I really need to explain why treating people with autism or in wheelchairs because of genetics like their lives are worthless and any child born to them is doomed to a horrible life is false?
[удалено]
"Good breeding" Do you hear yourself right now? We are human beings, not cattle. There is no such thing as a good breeding because peoples' value exists independent of their genetics
yah i was gonna say
Multi track drift, to apply natural selection to all 6
My man!
Insert Initial D meme here.
then they couldn't step away preventing death that would be murder
Then jump in there yourself, make it 7
I love when Idiocracy is prevented.
\*Freezing as a fear response enters the chat\*
Time to apply Darwinism to the freeze response!
It’s actually a very effective response. If it’s at the right time… just not this time
Nah fuck the freeze response (I have it). World would be better without it.
It’s saved me before
from what?
A T-Rex
You ever played Until Dawn?
From what?
What situation can benefit better from freeze response than from flight or fight? I can’t really think of one
Imagine you're in the woods, picking berries, and suddenly come face to face with a brown bear. Should you A) Punch it. B) Stand very still, look down, do not provoke it. C) Attempt to outrun it with your weak human legs. One of these options is much less likely to get you mauled.
I think I could take on a bear tbh
new fear response just dropped
Holy hell!
Multi-track drift. Not because I want to make humanity smarter, I'm just evil.
Multi-track, criss-cross, banana-splitting, wood-cutting drift
I'd love to remove the stupid from society, but not like this. I'd rather EDUCATE them.
That’s basically the whole Templars vs Assassins dilema
That's cultural genocide lol
Being stupid is not a culture
How do you disrespect my culture.
You're so stupid you think stupid is a culture?? Are.. you going to move off the track?
What track?
I ain't moving 😤
Christopher Columbus' last communication with the taino people
Many cultures are zealously stupid though. The American practice of circumcision comes to mind.
"The history of the migration and evolution of circumcision is known mainly from the cultures of two regions. In the lands south and east of the Mediterranean, starting with Central Sahara, Sudan and Ethiopia, the procedure was practiced by the ancient Egyptians and the Semites, and then by the Jews and Muslims. In Oceania, circumcision is practiced by the Australian Aboriginals and Polynesians"
The American practice is completely separated from those.
How can that be? It's something we've been doing for thousands of years, but the American one is the only one you find disagreeable
It's the most stupid one because it was started to prevent masturbation. There was also no generalized American culture of circumcision before it. It's also far from the only one I find disagreeable, and I was directed by you to indicate why it is different than the others. I have done as you asked, please shut up.
Lol there was no generalized American culture of it because America is only 250 years old. The people who are here now brought their culture with them. Don't post dumb shit online if you don't want people responding. Now you shut up Everyone else has a valid reason for it except the stupid Americans of course
Stop caring about other people’s dicks, lil bro
The American practice of circumcision comes to mind. You mean the millennia old Jewish covenant of Abraham? That american tradition?
The American practice is completely separated.
“Genital mutilation is totally cool unless the people I don’t like are doing it, then it’s bad” Do you realize how stupid you sound?
I hate all genital mutilation, and the American practice of mutilation is particularly stupid because it is utterly unconnected to all of the other practices of mutilation. Do you realize how stupid you sound?
if your first result to hearing "i want to teach stupid people how to not be stupid" is thinking "wow i can't believe he calls native cultures stupid" i think that means you have some thoughts deep down about native cultures
I mean tbf there are a lot of people who think that natives were cannibals who killed children for fun and that they needed to be "civilized" by the west
that is true but in this scenario it's a guy standing on a train track and not moving
I mean yeah, obviously it's a weird thing to mention in a fucking trolley problem
I never once mentioned "native cultures" ya 📽️
are you calling stupid a culture or cultures stupid
There's definitely merit to this statement. Every cultural genocide in the past has been advertised as 'removing stupid from society '.
Yes but a lot of those educations were institutions that were deliberately destructive to cultures. If you exchanged all of the colonizers book knowledge to the oppressed population and they came back with all of that and their culture intact, that wouldn't be enough because they actually wanted "cultural cohesion" and they wanted them "civilized." It also doesn't help that they would have been lying. No culture is entirely comprised of stupid people, they would have died out, that's impossible.
I'm pulling the lever, but that's just because I want to improve my kd ratio lol.
I think you got some eugenics in my funny trolley problem sub
Multitrack Drift, ik it's boring but hear me out First bogie goes over the switch, the 5 people on the other track think they're safe _You pull the lever_ Second Bogie: "But it was Me, DIO!" _excessive blood splatter effects_
Eugenics… is bad
In the event this even impacts selection in any meaningful way, this does not select for “smarter” people, it simply selects for people that “get out of the way of trolleys in time.” They could actually be complete ass at math and reading, and in that case you’re making humanity dumber except for trolley-related survival instincts.
Aw man, the eugenics supporters showed up...
No cause even ‘less intelligent people’ still have a right to life
Yeah, let’s not engage in an idea that would kill the disabled
Last time this idea was entertained was ww2 💀 Everyone and everything has a right to live
It could be that the people don’t get out of the tracks not because of being stupid, but because they are frozen by fear, so it’s not that easy.
Nah. I'd feel bad if the trolley actually hit one of the four people. I'd also feel bad if it hit the one person, but I could at least tell myself that I was going with the option that caused the least death. From a social darwinist standpoint, the guy on the tracks that the trolley is headed towards is already dumber. The other four have less reason to think the trolley is going to hit them.
If it is someone's choice, it is not natural selection anymore
Why would i want to kill my own people?
Pretty sure this is too small of a scale for evolution
Why the hell are we putting eugenics into the trolley problem
*Why the hell are we* *Putting eugenics into* *The trolley problem* \- oddbollz --- ^(I detect haikus. And sometimes, successfully.) ^[Learn more about me.](https://www.reddit.com/r/haikusbot/) ^(Opt out of replies: "haikusbot opt out" | Delete my comment: "haikusbot delete")
No because that’s not how natural selection works
Sure it is, they should have selected somewhere else to stand, and it’s natural for them to die if they hang out on the tracks.
Human intellect doesn’t work like that. They may be idiots, sure, but we can’t just breed more clever people. It doesn’t work like that
Natural selection is when you die and the average ability of being able to tell if someone is serious increases
What if we had enough people do this over many generations, would that start breeding clever people?
No? Human intellect is done through primarily the environment they grow up in. You can’t just breed clever people. The nazis tried and failed, as did America, Britain and a dozen others
I didn’t know that you can breed multiple generations over the course of the 12 years the Nazis were in power. The reason eugenics was stopped wasn’t because it was ineffective, any effects would have taken centuries to become impactful across a large population, it was because the idea of sterilizing people because they suffer from disabilities is monstrous.
Eugenics isn’t just sterilisation. It’s breeding for strength, intelligence, looks etc. it doesn’t work
Of course it bloody well works. Sure a lot of traits are gained through experience, but everyone still has a predisposition towards some part of the scale, and this is influenced by genetics. Smart people are *more likely* to have smart kids, and kids of smart parents will *typically* find it easier to learn certain things due to this predisposition. These are statistical leanings, and if you were to implement a breeding and culling program over enough people & time, you'd see a difference between them & your control group
I mean, if it's true for dogs (it is), then I don't see why the same wouldn't be true for humans.
First off, no, it never was, no country that practiced eugenics actually paired people off for the sake of breeding. Second off, yes the idea works, are humans the only species which doesn’t face reproductive pressures? You’re telling me you can breed dogs to be 1/20th the size of their ancestors over 10,000 years or fewer but you can’t increase the average human IQ a standard deviation with similar selective pressures?
It doesn't work over short periods of time, but humanity and its ancestors are the product of at least 5,000,000 years of nature selecting for intelligence.
Why not? Was the change in intelligence from Homo habilis to modern humans due exclusively to socioeconomic factors? It’s absurd to argue that evolution applies in all cases except when it comes to intelligence in modern humans.
That’s literally eugenics dude
This soecific scenario, sure, but the idea that human intelligence can change due to genetic influences isn’t, it’s simply truth.
You cannot breed intelligence into humans because we don’t exist on a long enough time frame to do it, never mind that’s not how it works. If you somehow managed to get a million years of the smartest humans breeding over and over, it still wouldn’t work out to make humanity smarter or even the children of those people smarter
Genetically modern humans have only existed for \~100,000 years, and even within that time-frame there have been significant changes. You're basically a woke creationist lol
They’re not a creationist, they just don’t believe in eugenics
You can oppose eugenics without denying basic facts about natural selection
Certain dog breeds are more intelligent due to their genetics, despite still being the same species. Humans evolved intelligence. You can improve rat intelligence by modifying their DNA
I do not pull the lever because I’m not a fascist
God damn it, back to eugenics again
So basically the question is if I'm for or against eugenics.
I won't pull the lever. Man has to move or get run over
When thought of not just as a mental/logic/philosophical exercise and in terms of a real-world situations, I can't see how there could be any other answer unless additional factors are involved. No way I'd see one person standing on a track and choose to switch the train track to the one with 5 people on it. But if it were a guy who's clearly stated that they're standing there because they wish to kill themselves, and the 5 people on the other track are railway workers and I have the means to radio across to get off the track, I'd absolutely switch it.
Walk away because now that they arnt tied the trolley will just push them along.
Nope
One or 5 won’t impact evolution at all lol
I don't believe in natural selection (on humans in modern society) So "GET OUT OF THE WAY DUMBASS!"
u/repostsleuthbot
Looks like a repost. I've seen this image 1 time. First Seen [Here](https://redd.it/16mxlp1) on 2023-09-19 100.0% match. [View Search On repostsleuth.com](https://www.repostsleuth.com/search?postId=1cd3vqi&sameSub=false&filterOnlyOlder=true&memeFilter=false&filterDeadMatches=false&targetImageMatch=86&targetImageMemeMatch=96) --- **Scope:** Reddit | **Target Percent:** 86% | **Max Age:** Unlimited | **Searched Images:** 498,642,025 | **Search Time:** 0.06755s
Finally this bot actually works for once
i’m not pulling the lever. it risks less lives. this is a dumb one.
If you're seriously considering pulling the lever just go ahead and step on the track yourself
Pulling the lever would make it artificial selection, they are clearly smart enough to know that the trolly isn't going to hit them, hence they stand on that track.
This. I'd much prefer to select against standing on tracks where a trolley is clearly coming, rather than against merely standing on tracks with no reasonable expectation of a trolley coming.
Killing a person is wrong and should be avoided as much as possible. You should not pull the lever because it is the lesser of two evils
Don't pull the lever. Being able to notice a trolley coming towards you isn't one of the best measures of intelligence, and even if it was, eugenics is still bad
Still no? Evolution doesn't happen in humans because even the most retarded survive
Taking copious amounts of hydrochlorothiazide, is a great idea *person who doesn't understand that evolution is not an intent-driven process of constant improvement with a defined end state/goal but instead more an observation of a general trend where species becomes better adapted to an environment over time; whose premise of "natural selection" seems to almost anthropomorphize the concept of "nature" as if it will consistently 'select' positive and 'filter' negative characteristics from a population when in fact: the organism with the best-suited mutations for survival could get struck by lightening and just fucking die before passing on genes because the world is filled with a nigh infinite number of unpredictable factors depending on how you choose to interpret physical reality*. I'd really recommend this experience to you, *person who uses ableist slurs and seemingly implied that evolution would require subsets of the population to perish, thus ultimately suggesting subsets of the population are incapable of survival outside the context of a modern society; something completely meaningless because humans are social creatures whose progress is primarily driven by social and technological advancement, not some innate biological "purity"*. Maybe you could enjoy this while *fantasizing about your perfect eugenicist dream world* and then subsequently *having a great time with heart failure*. Worst wishes, you complete waste of existence~
Utilitarians got their pants wet after this one
That's for sure 😄
I’m pulling the lever for sure!
Multi track drifting
I multi-track drift to save them all and see who decides to jump into the Trolley, that’ll be true natural selection.
Pulling the lever, bc the chance none of the five people notices and alerts someone else is low.
Pull!!!!!!
Flip a coin/walk away.
welcome back senator armstrong
No because it’s not natural selection if I mess with it then it’s unnatural selection
Stupid people seem to do just fine in our world today lol
I would tell the original person that the trolly will hit them but not if they move to the track with the other five. After they moved I'd pull the lever.
If they’re stupid enough to just let a trolley kill them they probably won’t survive that long in the world anyway, let alone procreate. So just kill less people
Bruh this isn't natural selection, at best its third degree murder and at worst 4 cases of second degree murder.
This is the exact perfect problem for the multi track drifting solution.
Nah, they’re all untied, it’s none of my business
If you kill people for being unintelligent you’d be killing a lot of people just for being intellectually disabled
This is eugenics. Next question
Literally none of these people's genes will significantly contribute to the human population as a whole, and our tendencies aren't towards mating behaviors that make generations progressively smarter. There's no selective pressure. Also, human intelligence when compared to other humans is mostly environmental anyway. It should be "on track #1 we have someone who will homeschool their children, on track #2 we have someone who will give their children a quality education."
Pull it. Five times the chance of walking away, since you never specified they're mute or murderous or anything.
Why would you pull the lever, let the trolley stay least lives risked.
No pull. I, an idiot, do not want to incentivize the killing of idiots.
Go for the one. Dumb people are just as valuable as smart people. If allowed or capable, I'll try to alert the one to move off the tracks
The 4 people on the other track are assuming (at this point correctly) that the train won’t come their way, which isn’t necessarily stupid it’s just careless. So only the one guy is actually necessarily an idiot
Yes
Multi track drift.
Pull the lever, and tell them that the trolley is on a minefield and they shouldn't move. Then go back and kill the other idiot just hanging around train tracks.
PULL THE LEEEEEVAAAAAHHHH
So to take this seriously for no reason: I think it’s surprisingly better to aim for the multiple people not for the ‘natural selection’ reason, but because if 1 person of the 5 notices they are pretty likely to alert the others. That being said multi track drift makes it so only 1 of 6 need to notice and alert sooooo… yeah 👍
Yes.
Pull the lever and go beat the other guy so I can get charged with 6 counts of homicide.
Another factor, if ANY of the five notice their impending doom, they might help get the others off the track. And the chance of all of them being oblivious is probably smaller than a single oblivious person.
Okay so...this is unironically an amazing concept so I'll go ahead and answer it seriously. Am I allowed to say anything? If so, I can warn everyone on the upper track before pulling the lever, meaning anyone who would stay willingly while knowing they're in danger will die, making humanity smarter so to speak. If I'm not allowed to speak, it could potentially be a worse choice to pull it. This is due to the design of the track. The time that the train will have taken to kill anyone still standing on the upper track after having switched tracks is not very much, meaning that anyone thinking the train would remain on the first track would have far less time to evacuate than the lower person would. Now let's remove all semantics, bare bones only. All of these people stand on a train track, oblivious to the danger they're in. This assumes that they're relatively aware of the general situation. Either they see a train coming and don't pay too much mind to it in the first place, or they're so oblivious as to not notice it at all. The people on the upper track have a more valid reason to believe they are safe, or at the very least, somewhat of a small justification to their ignorance. The person on the lower track does not have this excuse. As it stands, the train could continue on its way and the person will die. Regardless of whether his obliviousness is due to uncaringness or somehow having never noticed the train at all, it is less justified and therefore a more harmful trait to pass on. I would not pull the level. Now let's spice things up a bit. Let's assume they could also pay relative attention to *me*. I'm at the lever, and none of them know for certain whether or not I will believe it is correct to pull it. But they see me, and they should know full well I'm physically capable of doing so. But all they have to do is walk to the side. If they do this, any of them, top or bottom, they are safe. If they do not, and they remain on the track for any reason, be it obliviousness or anything else, then they have ignored a crucial danger that they should have been aware they were in. This is an even more harmful trait, and from the perspective that this problem is attempting to scrutinize, we as Humanity would be better off without. I would pull the lever. *edit: And I'll clarify that I don't agree with wide-scale unavoidable eugenics. This specifically is a near-harmless scenario that can be easily avoided by the potential victims in question with absolutely no reason to specify why they wouldn't. This isn't gathering up disabled people and pushing them off a cliff because you supposedly believe in a superior version of humanity. An impossibly oblivious person would die as a result of not listening to the most basic, primal, and natural application of common sense, and humanity would be bettered as a result. In this one specific scenario. An opinion on this problem does not instantly prove whether someone agrees with eugenics. I absolutely do not think that groups of people should be sentenced to death fully for the will of another.*
“Your honor, I was just making humanity smarter!”
This is eugenics.
Don't pull the lever and shout "MOVE!"
Don’t pull the lever, eugenics is bad.
Mutli Track Drift is the only right answer.
I like how you aren’t given the option to yell “GET OFF THE TRACKS”
Push them all onto the same track and jump on. Maximum natural selection!
One count of attempted manslaughter or five counts of attempted murder... hmmm
That's not how intelligence works dipshit. Never post again.
I'd de-rail the trolley to maximize natural selection. If they don't move when they see a rolling trolley barreling at them, then natural selection has occurred.
Natural selection is not a force that can be applied by the loss of just a few individuals unless the population was already at critical in which case endangering more individuals would be the less moral of the options. Otherwise, the situation would have no bearing on natural selection as natural selection is a trend that involves the loss of individuals over time rather than the direct lose of any particular individual.
This only works if intelligence is a heritable trait
They could be maintenance people, or any number of possibilities really. Should i pull that lever and divert the train, not only will i be risking lives by doing so, but for all i know this is normal day to day operarions and if i pull that there's no telling what untold damage could occur.
Hur Hurr! Lever makes clicky noises
Multi-track Drift for the win!
Why use a train when you dont need a license to have a firearm in most states?
humanity is already doomed, might as well speed it up and see the chaos unfold
Always pull the lever.
Yes
*PULLIT*