Imagine an awesome but slightly deadly new technology

Akrasia

How many innocent people would you be prepared to sacrifice to be able to use an awesome new invention.

Some context, cars are awesome, but every year tens of thousands of people are killed and seriously injured in car accidents, but we put up with the death because cars are so useful

So, lets imagine an implausible new awesome invention, unlimited free wireless charging of batteries any time anywhere from space

Satellites in space beam down microwaves that are converted to electricity inside our phones, our cars, our houses etc.

Free renewable energy, but the downside is a certain number of people have a randomly dispersed genetic condition that would result in them suffering pain and dying due to the microwaves. Everyone else is completely unharmed.

What percentage (or fraction of a percent) of people would you be prepared to sacrifice in order to enable this technology?

Elemonator

I don't think they are quite comparable to be honest. With cars, they are actually relatively safe. The deaths are as a result of their use, bad roads, bad drivers, negligence etc. They chose to be exposed to be in that environment.

With the satellites you talking about a potentially lethal radiation being beamed down from space. It is everywhere at every time. Cars were also developed many decades ago when it was a little bit more acceptable to have deaths and there was no other road users as dangerous.

Sorry if I made no sense :P

There are a subset of people - who I would not be surprised to see popping into the thread - who will say we are doing this already with things like Mobile Phones and Broadcasting towers causing cancer If you are really lucky you will get some anti-vaccinne types in too

One possible failing in your analogy between cars and your "new technology" is that with cars - the majority of the people you mention when you say "every year tens of thousands of people are killed and seriously injured in car accidents" are themselves driving or being driven. That means they themselves took the choice to enter into that arena - with all the attendant risks that involves. Pedestrian deaths do of course happen but this is only a portion of the whole.

So if your renewable energy source were to only cause those random negative issues with the people who choose to use that source then the question is rendered moot for me. If it is 1% 5% 75% I do not care - it is their choice and they can bring it on themselves. I have no moral issues with it so long as the users are made aware of the risks and they choose to take them.

So the question on where the threshold should lie for me would centre around what % of non-users of the technology are affected by the users or use of of it. And to be honest I do not know. It would be too contextual to give a general answer to. It would relate to how beneficial the technology is and what the benefits are. For example the "Free renewable energy" would have all kinds of knock on effects in terms of the damage we are doing to our planet and the damage pollution is doing to our population.

So yes - interesting question - but not one I could answer coherently in general but only in a specific case by case basis when I viewed the entire proposal being put forward.

What is interesting with cars however is that if AI and VI solutions start driving them better than we do, with less fatalities....... are we going to (probably very soon) reach a point where morally speaking allowing essentially an ape to drive a car will become a morally repugnant notion? Will we reach a time where we will morally negatively view people who want to drive cars themselves - putting other people at risk for no other reason than to satisfy their own subjective selfishness?

Winterlong

Deleted User wrote: »

There are a subset of people - who I would not be surprised to see popping into the thread - who will say we are doing this already with things like Mobile Phones and Broadcasting towers causing cancer If you are really lucky you will get some anti-vaccinne types in too

Honorable mention for the Fluoride types too.

Boom_Bap

I think I'd prefer if the boffins focused on some sort of VR mickey fiddler attachment.

Boom_Bap

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I think I'd prefer if the boffins focused on some sort of VR mickey fiddler attachment.

Sure - but how many corpses are you willing to climb over to make this dream a realization. (preferably not _while_ using it).

Is it one of those "If I can have the micky-manipulator-1000 then you can _all_ just go off and die" kinda things? Like "turning on the CERN reactor might end the universe - but goddamit I have to charge this thing up!"

donegal.

20 %

valoren

None.

Bad driving is not a disease. And death resulting from Cars is not a result of the car itself. It's simply an inanimate object. The death occurs from human error in it's operation. Death from car usage is simply a statistical probability. As humans that is logical and moral to us. Sh1t happens.

With the technology proposed, if it is known that there is a guarantee that death is inevitable, with or without their actual input would be incredibly immoral. Causality, not statistical probability. Sh1t happens, but on purpose.

Or something.

srsly78

Akrasia wrote: »

unlimited free wireless charging of batteries any time anywhere from space
What percentage (or fraction of a percent) of people would you be prepared to sacrifice in order to enable this technology?

You just killed 100% of the population by zapping the earth with infinite energy. Golf clap?

DrumSteve

Do we not already get this?

Solar energy?

osarusan

I'd be more interested in using it to target people with characteristics I didn't like.

Identify the gene for not picking up your dog's crap off the street, or for wearing Christmas sweaters with flashing lights, and take them all out, job done.

cml387

DrumSteve wrote: »

Do we not already get this?

Solar energy?

Yeah, and how many people die of skin cancer . Huh? Huh?

Akrasia

Elemonator wrote: »

I don't think they are quite comparable to be honest. With cars, they are actually relatively safe. The deaths are as a result of their use, bad roads, bad drivers, negligence etc. They chose to be exposed to be in that environment.

With the satellites you talking about a potentially lethal radiation being beamed down from space. It is everywhere at every time. Cars were also developed many decades ago when it was a little bit more acceptable to have deaths and there was no other road users as dangerous.

Sorry if I made no sense :P

With cars, there are the direct deaths from impacts, but also the indirect deaths from respiratory illness which affects everyone who lives in large cities whether they drive or not. You can argue about how many people die from this, but it's certain that at least some people do, so the question in the OP is, what is the acceptable number of deaths in order to start using this new technology.

Maybe there might even be a net gain, ie fewer people are randomly microwaved to death than would have died from bronchitis because of the emission from cars and solid fuel fires.

Akrasia

srsly78 wrote: »

You just killed 100% of the population by zapping the earth with infinite energy. Golf clap?

Think Star Trek levels of benign technology. no downsides, other than the x% of people dying agonizing deaths

Pat Mustard

Akrasia wrote: »

What percentage (or fraction of a percent) of people would you be prepared to sacrifice in order to enable this technology?

Divide annual monetary value of the new technology by monetary value per human life to give annual numbers of casualties.

DrumSteve

cml387 wrote: »

Yeah, and how many people die of skin cancer . Huh? Huh?

Only one cure in that case.

Kill the sun.

Little CuChulainn

Wormhole travel. Small chance you will not be put back together the same way you went in.

Tornaxx

We are doing this already with things like mobile phones and broadcasting towers causing cancer. Also something about Fluoride anti-vaccines. And pylons and the sun.

Elemonator wrote: »

I don't think they are quite comparable to be honest. With cars, they are actually relatively safe. The deaths are as a result of their use, bad roads, bad drivers, negligence etc. They chose to be exposed to be in that environment.

A lot of people who die from cars don't deliberately expose themselves to the threat of death by car, i.e. pedestrians. (Or are they doing that by just leaving the house?)

Maybe this new technology wouldn't be a bad thing. The planet is over-populated as it is, and we haven't had a dacent plague in ages. Years ago, some people thought that AIDS might be 'it', but we dealt relatively well with that.

I'll go for 5% and see how we get on. After 5 years, we can decide if it worth it (and increase or decrease the amount of exposure accordingly, if possible).

Elemonator

Tornaxx wrote: »

We are doing this already with things like mobile phones and broadcasting towers causing cancer. Also something about Fluoride anti-vaccines. And pylons and the sun.



A lot of people who die from cars don't deliberately expose themselves to the threat of death by car, i.e. pedestrians. (Or are they doing that by just leaving the house?)

Maybe this new technology wouldn't be a bad thing. The planet is over-populated as it is, and we haven't had a dacent plague in ages. Years ago, some people thought that AIDS might be 'it', but we dealt relatively well with that.

I'll go for 5% and see how we get on. After 5 years, we can decide if it worth it (and increase or decrease the amount of exposure accordingly, if possible).

I was thinking someone would mention this. I think that pedestrian deaths are only a small proportion of road deaths but I'm probably wrong. I haven't even seen the figures. If we were to nitpick over each variable, I don't think we would ever have an answer too.

Pat Mustard

Tornaxx wrote: »

We are doing this already with things like mobile phones and broadcasting towers causing cancer. Also something about Fluoride anti-vaccines. And pylons and the sun.

And hospital waiting lists.

Not an awesome technology but an invention of bean counters to save money.

donegal.

maybe space euthanasia.

a land of plenty for all, untill you hit 70 then pop.

Akrasia

valoren wrote: »

None.

Bad driving is not a disease. And death resulting from Cars is not a result of the car itself. It's simply an inanimate object. The death occurs from human error in it's operation. Death from car usage is simply a statistical probability. As humans that is logical and moral to us. Sh1t happens.

With the technology proposed, if it is known that there is a guarantee that death is inevitable, with or without their actual input would be incredibly immoral. Causality, not statistical probability. Sh1t happens, but on purpose.

Or something.

Its guaranteed that some people will die, but it's also guaranteed that lives will be saved through reduced air pollution, averting global warming, ensuring universal access to heating and lighting and air conditioning systems etc

Is it still immoral to launch this technology knowing that some percentage of healthy people today will be dead tomorrow even if it improves the lives of billions of people and possibly saves many more lives than it takes...

Akrasia

donegal. wrote: »

maybe space euthanasia.

a land of plenty for all, untill you hit 70 then pop.

Just like Star Trek The Next Generation episode S04E22, which i'm sure you all remember

scamalert

if such trechnology were developed issue would be less concerned for effects,rather danger of having tons of radioactive material in space,and possibility that smth could go wrong would be of too much risk to even consider it.and not even sure theres enough radioactive material or that even be profitable in any way,since simple math would show whatever energy could be obtained eventually when more would use it,the power provided would drop.

wakka12

This is not the same situation as cars. You choose to put yourself in a car and carry the risk of injuring yourself. This technology is forced on everyone and despite the benefits to most it still hurts some people. And no if it meant some people could die, possibly friends or family, then I would be against it. I think quality of life is extremely high as is and doesn't need any revolutionary advancement in ease and convenience

Pat Mustard

wakka12 wrote: »

This is not the same situation as cars. You choose to put yourself in a car and carry the risk of injuring yourself.

This assumes that motorists only injure themselves (or other motorists), which is untrue.

Motorists injure cyclists, pedestrians, animals, etc.

Akrasia

So if there were only 10 people in the whole world who would be negatively affected, you'd opposed it despite the enormous benefits?

wakka12

Pat Mustard wrote: »

This assumes that motorists only injure themselves (or other motorists), which is untrue.

Motorists injure cyclists, pedestrians, animals, etc.

Sometimes but its really uncommon don't you think? Usually when pedestrians are injured its when they jailwalk or don't look left and right before crossing, or if the driver is drunk/high and hits somebody but thats the intoxicant more to blame than the car. Cars killing pedestrians with little /no wrong doing on either part of the pedestrian or driver is extremely uncommon

wakka12

It doesn't elaborate on any of the pedestriand deaths though so we don't know whether they were at fault or not? And no, just anecdotally Ive heard of several innocent pedestrians being hit on paths by swerving drunk drivers

Akrasia

Can we get away from the area of blaming people for getting killed on our roads and just accept that deaths are equally tragic if they happen by car, or getting microwaved to death from space

wakka12

Akrasia wrote: »

So if there were only 10 people in the whole world who would be negatively affected, you'd opposed it despite the enormous benefits?

Well I cant say for sure. They are somebody's mothers, fathers, son, brother, sister etc. Would you prepared to let one of your closest family members die for the betterment of humanity? Because somebody else will in that position

sbsquarepants

Tornaxx wrote: »

The planet is over-populated as it is, and we haven't had a dacent plague in ages. .

Speak for yourself there buddy. I almost succumbed to the man flu over the Christmas. Felt the icy fingers of death on my shoulder so I did :mad:

Pat Mustard

wakka12 wrote: »

Sometimes but its really uncommon don't you think? Usually when pedestrians are injured its when they jailwalk or don't look left and right before crossing, or if the driver is drunk/high and hits somebody but thats the intoxicant more to blame than the car. Cars killing pedestrians with little /no wrong doing on either part of the pedestrian or driver is extremely uncommon

You are changing your argument now.

First, you said that it was the driver who chooses to get in the car and assumes the risk, so it wasn't the same as some technology that injures other people.

Now you are saying something else.

Akrasia

wakka12 wrote: »

Well I cant say for sure. They are somebody's mothers, fathers, son, brother, sister etc. Would you prepared to let one of your closest family members die for the betterment of humanity? Because somebody else will in that position

I'd rather not, tbh, but we're talking about a random risk of being affected. If the technology would save millions of lives but kill a thousand people, you're much more likely to be killing your relative by banning the technology than by allowing it.

Capt'n Midnight

Akrasia wrote: »

So, lets imagine an implausible new awesome invention, unlimited free wireless charging of batteries any time anywhere from space

Satellites in space beam down microwaves that are converted to electricity inside our phones, our cars, our houses etc.

Free renewable energy, but the downside is a certain number of people have a randomly dispersed genetic condition that would result in them suffering pain and dying due to the microwaves. Everyone else is completely unharmed.

What percentage (or fraction of a percent) of people would you be prepared to sacrifice in order to enable this technology?

First of all satellite power stations are uneconomic. So lots of preventable deaths from diverting funds from healthcare.

Solar panels work fine down here, and last longer. UV out in space is just nasty. For panels to beam power here at night they'd have to be up high, and then it's cosmic rays to deal with.



Microwaves are non-ionising radiation so no cancers, no mutations, no harm unless you are using literally enough to cook with. And even then it's far less energy than the 1,000 watts per square of radiation you get when facing the sun on a cloudless day. And that solar radiation is capable of chemical changes including mutations and cancer.


And besides the whole concept was to sell rockets not to provide power. Be far cheaper to launch mylar mirrors to reflect sunlight onto ground based solar panels at night.

Back in 1964 this was flown ttps://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2124.html 20.5m radius gives 5281m2 area over twice the 2500m2 of the IIS mirrors are far more efficient at reflecting light than using solar panels to convert to electricity and then to microwaves, beam them down and capture them and use recteanna to covert back to electricity.

Also mirrors won't kill anymore than sunlight :P
Only real risk is to people using telescopes and at worst they'll only loose one eye. And they'll look really cool with eye patches.