Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Bombadil  Quote:
Originally Posted by caleb_woodrow I would say no, but I might answer yes depending on the context. It depends on who the 75,000 Americans are, and in what manner they die. Are they normal healthy citizens? Considerations like that. It also depends on what ways the convenience machine makes life more convenient. It obviously doesn't make life more convenient for the 75,000 who die! | About those who die: it's somewhat random. Criminals on the lam may be killed, business men, little children, housewives, etc.
It allows you to get two and from work in 10 second rather than 45 minutes. Or, if you landed a top job 2 states over you could get there and back home by supper every day. it allows you to move your friends entire house in one trip as opposed to 10. It allows you more mobility. You could take your kids to Australia for the weekend, rather than the local fair, etc. That kind of convenience.
(And, what if they were all elderly people on their way out? They didn't have much life left, and they weren't in the greatest of health. Would that matter?) |
Sounds like the Star Trek transporter prototype. No, if it results in random deaths, I maintain the no vote. If the risk is on the adventursome first adopters, no problem.
The key is assumption of known (or guessed at) risks. That's why the auto example would be acceptable and this proposal would not be.