Member 2664
108 entries
470413 views

 RSS
(M)
US
Immortal since Jun 17, 2010
Uplinks: 0, Generation 4
mad-scientist and computer programmer looking for something more interesting than most people accept as their future
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • BenRayfield’s favorites
    From AsylumSeaker
    Christopher Langan
    From Yissar
    Technology Progress vs....
    From XiXiDu
    The Nature of Self
    From QESelf
    View Point Room Argument...
    From Jorgen
    My Paper on Computer...
    Recently commented on
    From gamma
    Is brain a computer?
    From BenRayfield
    Elections should be done...
    From BenRayfield
    The most dangerous thing...
    From BenRayfield
    Why is there no Content...
    From BenRayfield
    How can a set of computers...
    BenRayfield’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    Start your own revolution
    Catching up with the future. All major institutions in the world today are grappling to come to terms with the internet. The entertainment...

    Proposal for a multimedia...
    A musical mindstorm on the nature of sound, light, space and subjective experience powered by locally produced energy, heralding the ending of the...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    From BenRayfield's personal cargo

    Legal Murder Charity
    Project: Start your own revolution


    Donate money to prove Human life is for sale, legally.

    This can be done in any country or for the whole Earth overall, but its easiest to start in your own country, and mine is USA. I'll write it that way.

    Because of our relatively new ability to organize and count things on a global scale, or at least in our own country, allowing some small amount of error in counting, its now possible to calculate the price of a Human life. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_cost  of killing compared to not saving a life is too small to be relevant, but it is a good legal defense to be on a certain side of that line. The problem with that strategy is the line moved since you looked last, as a result of the economy changing and global politics. You didn't cross the line. The line crossed you. That's what happens when you stand next to an unstable line. But don't worry, because our elected leaders have been expecting this and have been writing laws (every few years) that say killing is legal, in more ways and for less reasons. "National security" is my favorite excuse for not admitting anything. Killing is ok as long as the secret laws say so. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex  is good for the economy.

    Most people in USA do not want to know how much money it costs to save the life of 1 random cow (like if some medical operation would have saved the cow's life which would continue until it died of old age, a cow for milking instead of meat).

    Most people in USA do not want to know how much money it costs to save the life of 1 random Human, and I think they don't want to know the Human's price for the same reason they don't want to know about the cow's price.

    People like to say Human life is priceless, but "supply and demand" of how much it costs to save the cheapeast lives in USA prove that there is a money value of 1 Human life. People desparately want to avoid ever thinking that because if they knew the price they would feel guilty about spending that amount of money on other things. Maybe they would see a commercial for a new car that costs 3.2 Human lives, buy that car, and then go to church and act like Human life is the most important thing. Theres lots of ways to be a hypocrite and cause people to die for selfish reasons. At least I know what I'm doing when I buy things at the cost of a fraction of a Human life. The most insane murderers refuse to admit what they did, with the blood still on their hands, they say they were just eating a tomato sandwich or its paint. That's what most people are when they refuse to see that there must be a specific money price of Human life.

    I want to see it proven, to the standards the courts of USA must accept as a fact, how much money it costs to save 1 of the 1000 cheapest Human lives in USA. We will call that COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE_IN_USA. Its a number of USA dollars, a specific amount of money, and it changes slowly over time as supply and demand of Human life (and medical technology) changes.

    Now I'll explain the subject of this thread: "legal murder charity". The purpose of it is to prove that you can buy Human lives, because if people admit it is happening, more of them will do something to stop it from happening.

    I want to start a government-certified charity. When donations sum to enough money, the "legal murder charity" will, while obeying all laws and paperwork of USA and doing everything in public and with permission of all people involved, pay 1 innocent healthy happy person to kill 1 other innocent healthy happy person only for the purpose of proving that you can legally pay to kill somebody.

    How can you get that to be legal? Its easy. Just use 1 of the hypocritical things about the USA government to logically force them to make it legal... Start with a very simple statement that most people agree with: If the 9/11/01 terrorist attack (which killed around 3000 people I hear) could have been prevented by "1 innocent healthy happy person" sacrificing their life to prevent it, then shouldn't it be legal for them to make that sacrifice? Wouldn't that make them patriotic and/or a good person? Shouldn't it be legal for them to save 3000 lives at the cost of their own? Of course it should, most people would agree.

    So if "1 innocent healthy happy person" chooses to sacrifice their own life to save 3000 peoples' lives in USA, that should be legal. Lets get that in writing, and if they refuse, call them supporters of the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks until they give it to you in legal writing, that 1 can sacrifice to save 3000.

    Because I value Human lives so highly, I am willing to donate some of my own money (like many other people probably would) to prove that its legal (after we get those laws changed and all necessary paperwork signed) to pay money to kill "1 innocent healthy happy person", so I would donate to this charity, and when the charity got enough money to save 3000 lives (exactly 3000 multiplied by COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE_IN_USA amount of money, as written above), then we legally pay a specific "1 innocent healthy happy person" to kill a specific other "1 innocent healthy happy person" (both volunteered for this purpose), and then we have proven that Human life is for sale, which can have only the effect of people starting to pay attention to such selling of Human lives and results in extremely more Humans not being sold this way.

    Everyone involved chose to be, so all results of the "legal murder charity" are chosen (by people who have the freedom to not choose it) or are positive.

    I would donate money to the "legal murder charity". In general, people who would not are more likely to be scared to know how much it costs to save 1 Human life.


    It would also be very effective to get COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE (for the average cost of the 1,000,000 cheapest Human lives to save on Earth) proven to be a specific money amount and use COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE as an international money unit. How much does your new car cost? 3.2 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs? Buy in the next 10 minutes and get 0 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs down and 0.3 COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFEs interest for 3 years, subject to approved credit.


    Or for a different truth that most people desparately want to not know, calculate COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE separately for each race or country. Prove that blacks and whites are worth different amounts of money according to the standard of supply and demand. I don't think they're worth different amounts, but I don't believe in money either.


    Or do you think war is ok but its not ok if its civilians who choose to save lives at the cost of their own? How is it relevant that I'm playing this like a game? Thats what works. Before pointing a finger at me, read about how much money the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex  spends on killing people. I'm talking about legally killing 1 consenting person to save 3000 people. Please help create and donate to the "legal murder charity" to save lives.

    Why should killing only be legal for people with money and political power?

    Also, a more practical proposal, to all cogs in the war machine (parts of the "military industrial complex", businesses who build excessive weapons for the government in a feedback loop, a process that expands like a virus, etc)... This is just 1 of many possible strategies based on logic and the propaganda you've got people to believe (like terrorism being more important than saving lives). If some part of your "military industrial complex" wanted to selfishly help itself and save a lot of lives, then it could help people like us find the hidden causes of other parts of the "military industrial complex", and we would have less reason to focus on your specific department's use of tax money to build unnecessary weapons, if you helped us peacefully neutralize other parts of the "military industrial complex".. if you wanted your department to be peacefully neutralized later instead of sooner. Just a proposal. Its your choice, cog in the war machine. That's called a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma  and this time you're on the receiving end. I'm going to show people how to do that many more ways. In a system where lots of contradictions exist in the rules (like the USA government), its easy to find ways to cause it to do anything you want it to do. Start from "true equals false" and you can derive any outcome. They gave that power to themselves but did not realize they gave it to us too, if we dare to use it.

    Lets throw a wrench into the war machine. Stop 1 cog (in the war machine) from turning, put it out of business or make it lose enough money that the event is reported on the news, and the other cogs in the war machine will know who is really in control. They will defect in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma  (which I described above) one after the other, faster each time. You think the war machine has power? Strategy is real power, and I don't see enough people using it.

    Sun, Aug 8, 2010  Permanent link

    Sent to project: Start your own revolution
      RSS for this post
    4 comments
      Promote (1)
      
      Add to favorites
    Synapses (3)
     
    Comments:


    BenRayfield     Sun, Nov 21, 2010  Permanent link
    In this video
    http://www.ted.com/talks/esther_duflo_social_experiments_to_fight_poverty.html
    Esther Duflo explains some research where my COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE variable (which I explained above) is estimated as between $300 and $10000, depending on what the money is spent on to save the cheapest Human lives and if it can be repeated in other locations. That part is near the end of the video. She explains some unexpected things that have the effect of saving lives, things which are cheaper than what money is normally spent on.

    What is COST_OF_HUMAN_LIFE, the variable I proposed in the post above?
     http://spacecollective.org/BenRayfield/6643/Human-Life-Worth-1000-Dollars 
    BenRayfield     Sun, Jul 17, 2011  Permanent link
    Pay To Not Save A Life - I Am Planning A Legal Murder

    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." —Jiddu Krishnamurti

    Billions of people died because of the way money flows through society, and it will continue until people change how they think about money and the value of Human life. I have a very surprising plan of how to change how people think. I'm going to kill someone without breaking any laws, and I'll invite police to the event to make sure its done legally, and I'll invite news reporters to show the world this shocking event of legal murder. Before I explain the details of this premeditated murder (which will be done legally), some research on the price of Human life:

    GiveWell's research found that Human lives can be saved for less than $1000 each.
    http://wikipedia.org/wiki/GiveWell
    http://givewell.org

    "Esther Duflo: Social experiments to fight poverty" says between $300 and $10000 per life saved.
    http://ted.com/talks/esther_duflo_social_experiments_to_fight_poverty.html

    Most people think you can't put a value on Human life, but that's not true, because "supply and demand" is accepted as the measure of value by most people, and there is a price that anyone can pay to save a life. If people thought a life was worth more than that, they would pay it and the price would increase as the cheaper lives are saved. It is an economic fact that the cheapest Human lives are worth around $1000 each. As I see it, a person is worth as much as they can help the world.

    This legal murder I'm planning starts with a thought-experiment, but it will end with someone really dieing. This thought-experiment would be very hard to set up in reality, but its the idea that's important to understand before redesigning it to be easier.

    The "pay to not save a life" thought-experiment:

    Einstein becomes terminally sick in a country where hospitals only save you if you can pay. He has no insurance. He will die within a week if he doesn't get a million dollar operation. The sickness he has is very predictable. Everyone of the many thousands who had it died within a week without the operation, and everyone who got the operation lived until old age or something else killed them. We know "beyond a reasonable doubt" (which is the legal way to say it in USA) that Einstein will die within a week if he doesn't get the million dollar operation, and he will live a normal life if he gets the operation.

    Gandhi is planning to pay up to the million dollars to save Einstein's life. Combining all the money everyone else is willing to pay, it totals much less than a million dollars unless Gandhi pays. Einstein will die within a week if Gandhi does not choose to save Einstein's life.

    Gandhi has no legal obligation to save Einstein's life, but he plans to as soon as he can get to a bank and the hospital.

    "Beyond a reasonable doubt", Einstein will live a normal life if nothing interferes with his operation.

    Kaczynski pays Gandhi 10 million dollars in exchange for Gandhi not paying for Einstein's operation and not paying anyone else to or any other indirect way of getting Einstein's operation to happen, unless someone else changes their mind and decides to pay their own money for it with no influence from Gandhi (direct or indirect influence) to do that.

    Within a week, Einstein dies.

    Kaczynski paid for Einstein to die without breaking any laws. Its legal because Gandhi had no obligation to save Einstein's life. Kaczynski had Einstein assassinated, is an accurate statement, because Kaczynski paid for a future to occur where Einstein dies. Kaczynski does not go to jail because, similar to billions of people dieing from how the money flows in society, it is not illegal to pay somebody not to save somebody else's life.

    End thought-experiment.

    This is satire, but I think we should really do a more practical variation of this.

    It would be very hard to find somebody about to save a life when they don't have to and also willing to not save the life for enough money, so we would probably have to set up such a situation. For example, maybe a game-show in a hospital where money is already allocated to save 10 peoples' lives who will probably die in the next week if they don't get an expensive operation, and the players of the game-show do some kind of gambling or game playing or negotiation with eachother to decide how many of those people should be saved and how much money should go to each of the players. It would work better if the players get a lot of money in exchange for the hospital patients getting a little less health. They would indirectly be paying the organizers of the game-show to not save some of those 10 lives. They would indirectly pay for murder, but that's "murder" in the reality of it, not "murder" in the legal definition of it.

    I first had this idea in my "How many dollars is a Human life worth, if a vote would choose a tax to pay it?" thread on the Bitcoin forum:
    http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=29211.0

    Can you think of other ways to do this general idea of paying someone to not save a life when they don't have to?

    When the world realizes its been doing this and billions have died from it already, paying for people to not save lives, people will decide to reorganize the world to stop most of that. 1 life to save millions or billions? Lets do it. That's much better than the cost of wars.

    I use the least force needed to solve problems. I don't start fights. I don't argue for no reason. If someone hit me I would probably ask them why they did it instead of getting angry, but I would not let them hit me. As I see it, to save the most number of lives and improve the world most efficiently using the least force, we should kill (by paying somebody not to save the life of) an innocent person, an indirect premeditated murder without breaking any laws, with police invited to make sure its done legally, and news reporters invited to show the world how profoundly sick society really is where its legal to pay someone not to save a life and this happens to billions of people indirectly.

    "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society." —Jiddu Krishnamurti

    Who wants to help plan a legal murder to change how people think about money and the value of Human life?
    {i}Pan~     Mon, Jul 18, 2011  Permanent link
    I love these kinds of thought experiments, they really make one think!

    But I don't find it practical in reality.
    BenRayfield     Sat, Sep 3, 2011  Permanent link
    Ok as a thought experiment, the pure logic version...

    This proof-by-contradiction starts with 4 assumptions that most people will agree are true. At least 1 will be proven false.

    //Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).
    not(legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))

    //Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).
    legal(not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway)))))

    //Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
    //if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.
    existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
    equals(
    diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway),
    not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
    )
    )

    //If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
    //For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.
    forAllVar( x, ifThen(legal(x), legal(try_toward_future_where(x))) )

    Those are the assumptions. Below is logic following from them.

    //Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).
    legal(
    not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
    )
    AND
    //If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
    //For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.
    forAllVar( x, ifThen(legal(x), legal(try_toward_future_where(x))) )
    THEREFORE
    //Its legal to cause someone not to try to buy food for starvingInnocentPersonFarAway so they die,
    //because there is no responsibility to spend money to pay for the food, for example.
    legal(try_toward_future_where(
    not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
    ))

    //Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
    //if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.
    existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
    equals(
    diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway),
    not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
    )
    )
    AND
    //Its legal to cause someone not to try to feed starvingInnocentPersonFarAway so they die,
    //because there is no responsibility to spend money to pay for the food, for example.
    legal(try_toward_future_where(
    not(try_toward_future_where(not(diesTooSoon(x))))
    ))
    THEREFORE, BY SUBSTITUTING 1 EQUAL THING FOR ANOTHER
    existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
    legal(try_toward_future_where(
    diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway)
    )
    )

    existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway,
    and(
    //There exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who its legal to try to kill
    legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))),
    //Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).
    not(legal(try_toward_future_where(diesTooSoon(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway))))
    )
    )

    existVarWhere(starvingInnocentPersonFarAway, and(z, not(z)))

    false. The proof-by-contradiction is done, proving that at least 1 of the assumptions (listed above) is false.

    Which is it? Here's your choices. At most 3 can be true:

    //Its not legal to try toward starvingInnocentPersonFarAway dieing (murder).

    //Its legal to not try to prevent starvingInnocentPersonFarAway from dieing (not my responsibility).

    //Somewhere there exists a starvingInnocentPersonFarAway who diesTooSoon
    //if and only if someone does not try to prevent it.

    //If x is legal, then trying to cause x is also legal.
    //For example, its legal to die of old age, and its also legal to try to die of old age.

    Also, the word "legal" can be replaced by "ethical" or by "not(sin)" or by "my_goals_include" etc and the proof works the same way, so theres no escape through semantics. Think I'm wrong? The rules of logic are clear. Quote the line with the error, or choose 3 of the 4 to be true.
     
          Cancel