• deegeese@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 months ago

    Sure, except the third party track loops back to the R track because we live in a 2-party system.

    • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      Correct, I have this expressed with the line:

      Track 3 promises no death at all, but if collaborative action fails, track 2 wins due to a more cohesive bloc and everyone has to watch their children die.

      • Aqarius@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        5 months ago

        …This, honestly, sounds like less of a trolley problem and more of a prisoners dilemma. As in, if everyone enough people defect, you get track 2, if enough people don’t defect, you get track 3, and track 1 is if it’s in between.

        Of course, the problem, then, is that it would imply the people aiming for track 2 will defect, people aiming for track 3 won’t, and people aiming for track 1 would try to convince people not to defect, while defecting themselves.

        • spujb@lemmy.cafeOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re not wrong. Especially with the fact that copious capital goes into political campaigning from all sides; it’s kind of like a prisoner’s dilemma where the prisoners can communicate—for a price but both tracks 1 and 2 are well funded by corporate interest while 3 is just kind of left to fend for itself.

            • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              I mean tbf given the original intent of the creator any use of the experiment aside from pointing and laughing at the stupid idiots who the two decisions represent is a misuse