The Covenience Machine

[Jim Johnston]

What if someone invented a machine -- call it, The Covenience Machine -- that saved us all a lot of time and made our lives generally much easier had we not had The Covenience Machine. The only drawback, says the inventor, is that it would cost about 75,000 American lives (though they were dedicated to making it safer) per year, and contribute to environmental distress (though they were working on making it safer here too).

How many of you would vote to have The Covenience Machine?

 

[Cheshire Cat]

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!

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is the automobile, right?

 

[RamistThomist]

No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually).

A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's Brave New World.

 

[RamistThomist]

This is the automobile, right?

Wow, I narrowly missed a nasty wreck about 45 minutes ago! At best I would have lost my arm (or at least had my shoulder crushed).

 

[VictorBravo]

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!

If the convenience machine is a means of execution and the 75,000 Americans are justly condemned murderers, then it probably would be a good thing. I wasn't assuming this, though.

 

[VictorBravo]

No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually).

A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's Brave New World.

I'm pretty much in this camp. I got often go out of my way to lead an inconvenient life.

 

[panta dokimazete]

This is the automobile, right?

Wow, I narrowly missed a nasty wreck about 45 minutes ago! At best I would have lost my arm (or at least had my shoulder crushed).

Well, praise God, you are ok!

 

[Jim Johnston]

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?)

 

[panta dokimazete]

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.

hmmm - tempting...so how many people would actually use this machine per year?

 

[Jim Johnston]

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.

hmmm - tempting...so how many people would actually use this machine per year?

If we voted it in, millions.

 

[VictorBravo]

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.

 

[Theoretical]

No, but I had another reason against it before I saw "the cost." Me personally, I grow lazy, weak, sinful, and overall worthless when things are convenient. But in the midst of spiritual battle (and sometimes physical conflict, ideological conflict) I thrive (usually).

A convenience machine would make me little better than those in Huxley's Brave New World.

I'm pretty much in this camp. I got often go out of my way to lead an inconvenient life.

Convenience is something I've been extremely grateful NOT to have on numerous occasions. It is often a curse as much as it is a blessing.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I guess I voted the lone yes so far.

I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.

HYPOCRITES!

 

[panta dokimazete]

so - 7.5 million users per year would total a death percentage of 1% - that's actually a pretty high safety record for a travel machine of any sort...

 

[panta dokimazete]

I guess I voted the lone yes so far.

I already voted yes several times by buying several automobiles.

HYPOCRITES!

yeah, I went with my gut, initially instead of weighing the analysis as I am doing now.

Oh, Mighty SysAdmin, hath thou the power to changeth mine vote to "Yea, verily"?

 

[Jim Johnston]

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.

Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't know how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They do know that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.

They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?

 

[panta dokimazete]

and Herr Bombadil - you voted yet?

 

[Jim Johnston]

For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there; (b) is convenience more important than human life? Just how important is human life?; (c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

J.D.,

Fixed it.

Again, I think it would depend on the benefits offered too. Automobiles are a good example because they don't cause accidents by design but a variety of factors do.

I have a feeling that most Americans might vote No unless it was something they were in control of. That is to say, that if it was a hover craft and they got to fly it, they'd be willing to put up with the deaths because they would feel like they were in control.

When people are not in control, they actually take more notice of the deaths that is caused by a thing and focus on the fact that a convenience brings about unintended death rather than focusing on all the other things it brings.

If you only factored in the deaths that a convenience brought, you would never use something like that. Think, however, of the quality of life improvements that roads and quick transportation has brought. If you need a reminder of that then try visiting Bangladesh right now. We're actually in the middle of figuring out how we're going to help them if the government asks for help. Getting medicine or doctors to some places is going to be hard because of all the unimproved roads they have.

Anyway, I'd have to know what this thing was. If it was a transporter and you had a 1% chance of being completely scrambled by it even though you got across the world in 10 minutes then it wouldn't be a very popular means of mass transit but, in emergencies, you'd always take the risk because if you could get an accident victim from the scene of an accident to an ER in an instant you would always take the chance of using the transporter because you could save his life by getting him on the operating table within the "golden hour".

Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.

 

[VictorBravo]

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.

Say that tested it in Russia for the past 10 years. They don't know how many deaths it would produce, but 75,000 was an average. The intention isn't to kill, it is an unintended by-product. They do know that deaths will occur, roughly 75,000, but it could be 65,000 one year. And, as I said, they're dedicated to making it safer.

They put it up for a vote here, which way would you go?

I'd still vote no. NONONONO. It's socialism, I tell you. What business do we have voting on such things anyway?????

Edited to add: BTW, I voted no on mass transit too in the last election. For the same reason.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

If the convenience machine would allow me to

1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
2. sneak up behind him
3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
4. write with indellible marker on his face
5. give him a wet willy
6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun

Then I would definitely vote yes.

 

[Jim Johnston]

J.D.,



Anyway, I'd have to know what this thing was. If it was a transporter and you had a 1% chance of being completely scrambled by it even though you got across the world in 10 minutes then it wouldn't be a very popular means of mass transit but, in emergencies, you'd always take the risk because if you could get an accident victim from the scene of an accident to an ER in an instant you would always take the chance of using the transporter because you could save his life by getting him on the operating table within the "golden hour".

Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.

Transporting while under the influence - TUI.

 

[VictorBravo]

For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there; (b) is convenience more important than human life? Just how important is human life?; (c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?

This has been a pretty good provoker, TB. I think the problem I have with the scenario (as I subtly hinted at in my socialism post) is the idea of a collective vote on collective risk. We are quite used to evaluating and taking individual risks. Those are personal decisions. Sometimes, providentially, those risks result in death.

But voting on it assumes that the collective will has the authority to impose this risk on those who may not individually want to assume it. It assumes the role of providence.

I think that is what drives the intuitive no vote and why we can justify driving our cars.

 

[panta dokimazete]

For the yes votes, (a) what moral justification is there;

The same moral justification we tacitly utilize every time we use a car, get a flu vaccination, flip a power switch, etc...

(b) is convenience more important than human life?

I think you are leaving out a significant metric - how many human lives would be saved by this ability to rapidly transport? Think of the stroke and heart attack victims alone and you start to see a positive return.

Just how important is human life?

hmm - an important moral question - I may answer this later...

(c) since it is highly analogous to automobiles, why the initial reaction of all no votes? It seems that we intuit that human life is more valuable than our convenience, but then we changed when we found out it could be our car. Why?

Again - I look at the potentially overbalancing metric - how many people are saved each year by the first responder enabled by this "convenience machine"?

 

[Jim Johnston]

If the convenience machine would allow me to

1. transport into Tom Bombadil's living room
2. sneak up behind him
3. put him in a blood choke to render him unconscious
4. write with indellible marker on his face
5. give him a wet willy
6. transport back out before he came to and got his gun

Then I would definitely vote yes.

 

[panta dokimazete]

 

[panta dokimazete]

Bottom line, it is all about risk vs. reward...

 

[Jim Johnston]

Bottom line, it is all about risk vs. reward...

what kind of ethic is that? What's the name?

Are there any intrinsic evils/goods?

What of the abortionist and euthenasists arguments?

What if the majority understood the risks - some possible misdiagnosis, etc - and voted for convenience?

What's the risk vs, reward?

What device do we use to measure risk vs. reward?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Of course, if he got scrambled then his family would sue and lawyers would make much of the dangers, ignoring the larger statistical danger.

Reminds me of Stephen King's The Jaunt; Michael Crichton's Timeline; Star Trek: The Next Generation -- Realm of Fear; and other such stories.