Non-existence as punishment : a hypothetical

Great Debates
81

The concept of a ‘truncated timeline’ bears some closer examination, too. If the machine is used to eradicate a 25 year old psychopath, then every event associated with that person in those 25 years will be eliminated too; over such a long period of time these events could include almost every event occuring on Earth, including the thoughts inside people’s heads. Eliminating that one person would eliminate every event that was affected by them no matter how indirectly- this will even include the random conception of various individuals, so you could end up removing an arbitrary number of people as well.

This machine would kill everyone in the universe (at least everyone within 25 light years) and replace them with alternative versions, with various amounts of difference ranging from none to drastic changes.

82

So you don’t want to actually respond to my post, but pretend that you did by quoting it and responding to something else. Terrific.

No, the experiment is not erased by the machine. Erasing the experiment would entail bringing the criminals back into existence. The scenario in the OP is one giant experiment and the reduction in crime is not erased as the criminals are- it is the purpose in using the machine to begin with. Similar experiments designed to test the machine’s efficacy could have been performed to insure the science is sound.

Most likely, huh? Or they know that a certain working machine exists and it explains how violent crime has dropped to almost zero just fine.

83

I’m not sure I’d say you could “insure the science is sound”, just because this machine messes with cause and effect so much, and cause and effect is what most science we know is based on. But I love the idea of calibrating the device to work on fruit flies for proof of concept tests. Identify and unexist all the green-eyed flies out of a particular batch one time, then all the red-eyed flies or whatever. That would at least demonstrate that “something spooky is going on, and it seems to follow the stated intent of the guy with the machine.”

84

Yeah, and if similar tests were done and every time the desired effect came to fruition, we could identify the cause with a pretty good level of conviction.

85

I think what bothers me most about this concept is the notion that using the device could bring history to a standstill; someone keeps pushing the button over and over trying to make changes. Like shuffling and dealing the cards until you get a straight flush in diamonds. (Without realizing that your deck doesn’t have any kings :wink: )

It would also wig me out to actually push the button, or see it being pushed, and realize that the timeline I’m in will collapse. Sure, the evidence may be convincing that a new timeline will develop, but I won’t remember what I remember now.

86

I love the analysis of the device and the hypothetical. The device is definitely a logical impossibility, and you can come to all sorts of different conclusions based on what it’s actually doing because it’s impossible, so you have to make some concessions of reality to say anything about it.

But really what I was trying to get to was whether or not anyone who was against the death penalty would support “non-existence” instead. Is it a more or less ethical punishment?

Whether the device is actually ever used or not is really irrelevant. What we know for sure is that somehow the state has the power to erase the “current” universe and in its place create a “new” universe that is otherwise identical to the original one, except for the existence and influence of one individual, every time it is used.

As others have stated, some people would be affected dramatically (most certainly the victims, and close family and friends), and some people might not be affected at all (though it’s hard to say because of how even seemingly insignificant events could save or cost someone their life).

But what we do know for sure is that we have removed a murderer from ever having existed.

In my original hypothetical, I stated that violent crime had dropped off considerably, that basically there were no solved murders (because every solved murder is wiped from existence), but as another poster pointed out, I’m not sure that would even happen. It’s quite possible that every time you wipe a murderer from existence, another will pop up in her place with a 1-to-1 frequency.

Anyhow, it seems like everyone thinks that, unless it were to prevent nuclear annihilation, such a device should never be used. But what’s the cutoff point? If it’s not ethical to use it for a guy who murders someone or 12 people, what about a guy who flies a plane into a tower and kills 2000? Or someone who nukes one city and kills 10 million people?

87

One problem with testing the machine is the apparent fact that a significant number of murders are not committed by psychopaths and sociopaths but by friends/acquaintances, or by members of the victims’ families, in the heat of argument. This suggests that such murders will continue to occur, even if this machine were capable of removing psychopaths and sociopaths. The most likely observable effect of such a machine would be a reduction in murder statistics but not a complete one.

88

Well, to have a reasonable hope of progressing into the future, I would say that if the average victim is approx 50 years old, you should only use it for the perpetrators of events so bad they occur on average once a century.

89

So, a wash?

90

If that were all there were to it, I would consider it almost identical to the death penalty. Someone who was alive, now is not alive.

I would oppose it, even if its effects were limited to that person and had no “leakage” to other people and actions. The guy, in his life, might have done some good. Maybe he had a poem published in an anthology somewhere. I don’t think it’s right to annihilate his entire life history.

Now, the OP also specified that the victim of the crime was not killed. The murderer, by dint of never having existed, never killed.

To me, that’s the big potato in the saucepan. I can bring the victim back to life? I can reduce the overall level of human suffering and misery in this world?

Again, if this were the whole of the deal, then, yes! Fuck yes! The killer never existed, and the victim never died. That’s a great big positive-sum outcome!

Then the question arose of leakage, and how the machine’s effects altered everyone’s life history and experiences, and…that’s when the issue became too muddy to decide easily. With that complication, I’m against it. Bringing one person back to life, at the cost of eliminating everything that’s happened in the last 25 years – all our accomplishments, all our discoveries – is just too great a price to pay.

Yes, sure, many of those accomplishments would be re-accomplished. But not all of them. The little chancy things would very likely come out differently. The outcome of the Super Bowl could very easily be altered. And as for sperm meeting eggs – not one single child born in the subsequent 25 years is the same child! In an obscure sense, you’re saving one murder victim – and murdering some half a billion other children!

91

You sure about that? How will anyone even remember what the “desired effect” was?

92

In that same obscure sense, by not pushing the button you’re denying the right to all the half-billion other children who would have existed but now cant. Or something.

93

You have to announce to what effect the machine will be used before the creatures it will be used on are conceived. If they are conceived without the targeted trait, then you have demonstrated you have a device capable of spooky eugenics without obvious causation–which is basically what the OP is all about.

But if you don’t decide what you’re going to select for until the lifetime of the target lifeform, then you’re right, nobody will remember what you were selecting for.

94

Is that even possible? Name a life form that fits this criteria.

95

Umm… I referenced one upthread; the fruit fly, well known as a life form that makes for easy heredity experiments because of their brief lifetime. Or are you asking about a different criterion than “short enough lifetime to make demonstrations of the power of the Machine practical”?

96

The OP states, “…essentially nothing else changes in the universe except for the direct impact the target had due to his existence.” Even if we assume that the changes are minimal, the most direct impact anyone can have is parenting a child. So if any target has had a child, that child is erased automatically. How can any punishment be ethical when the criminal’s innocent child is subjected to the exact same sentence as the criminal?

97

If you name “fruit fly” and then turn on the machine, then fruit flies never existed, and you could not have named “fruit fly.” I’m just trying to point out how difficult it would be to ever test if the machine actually works.

98

Okay, here might be the issue. I wasn’t under the impression that it worked on names, just on individuals. Thus, you could eliminate particular fruit flies from a brood without the others (or your observers’ awareness of the species of fruit fly) being affected.

And I love the idea of the machine technicians having to somehow feed identifying information on particular fruit flies into the machine. :smiley: