[alancalverd]

No, it just shows that society is dynamic and evolutionary (except in the USA).

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

No, it just shows that society is dynamic and evolutionary (except in the USA).

It shows that the models don't take dynamics of the society into account, which makes them inaccurate and can only be good for a short period of time.

[alancalverd]

In order to model the future evolution of society completely, you will need a complete model of every individual plus a predictive model of the climate and all natural disasters.

It is for example difficult to imagine how science would have evolved if Newton was not in quarantine. Or if someone had studied the antibiotic effect as thoroughly as Fleming (who just noticed the accidental contamination of a culture) in time to cure Henry VIII's syphilis: No Anglican church → vastly different history of Britain and America....

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

In order to model the future evolution of society completely, you will need a complete model of every individual plus a predictive model of the climate and all natural disasters.

It is for example difficult to imagine how science would have evolved if Newton was not in quarantine. Or if someone had studied the antibiotic effect as thoroughly as Fleming (who just noticed the accidental contamination of a culture) in time to cure Henry VIII's syphilis: No Anglican church → vastly different history of Britain and America....

With finite data and computational resources to run a model of the world, we must work smart, using Pareto principle, and address most significant things first.
To avoid unnecessary and inevitable disagreements, we need to identify common goals among society members.
To avoid misunderstandings, we also need to address ambiguous terminology in morality.

[alancalverd]

 Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.

What do you mean by rich? Why should everyone wants to be rich?
To be richer then everyone else, you can make yourself richer, or make everyone else poorer. Is the later equivalent to the former? Why or why not?

[alancalverd]

I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?

No. But I've read some. Although I can't confirm if it's true.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-algorithm-crime-week-advance-reveals.html
Advances in machine learning and artificial intelligence have sparked interest from governments that would like to use these tools for predictive policing to deter crime. Early efforts at crime prediction have been controversial, however, because they do not account for systemic biases in police enforcement and its complex relationship with crime and society.

The progress in AI should remind us to be clearer about what's allowed and what's not in a society. It must contain a formal definition of morality.

[alancalverd]

What's not allowed in society is called "crime".  Proof of intent is always difficult, but preventive intervention is always welcome.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Common goal: to be richer then everyone else. Now avoid the disagreements.

What do you mean by rich? Why should everyone wants to be rich?
To be richer then everyone else, you can make yourself richer, or make everyone else poorer. Is the later equivalent to the former? Why or why not?

I can't answer why, but I've never met anyone who aspired to be poorer than anyone else. Have you?

Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves. That something are often necessary to achieve our goals, or even necessary just to stay alive, which is one of our basic instincts.
Being rich doesn't help much if we live in a primitive or isolated society. In most of human history, no matter how rich we are, we couldn't cure heart attack or go to the moon.

[alancalverd]

Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.

I think you have just discovered the fundamental point of money. In principle, you get it by working for someone else, and  use it to get a third party to do something for you. It is (or should be) the countercurrent of labour.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Here's my answer. Being rich gives us the ability to make someone else do something that we don't want to do or can't do by ourselves.

I think you have just discovered the fundamental point of money. In principle, you get it by working for someone else, and  use it to get a third party to do something for you. It is (or should be) the countercurrent of labour.

Another way to look at money or currency is as a bookkeeping tool for resources creations, distributions, and consumptions. So, collecting more of it can only be an instrumental goal. Another way to do that is by asking from socialist governments. Or empowering ourselves through education and/or automation.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The Truth About Why America Dropped Atomic Bombs on Japan
The atomic bomb proved to be the most devastating weapon used in any war, past or present, but was the United States justified in dropping two nuclear warheads on Japan for their unconditional surrender? Check out today's insane new video and maybe your opinion will change on whether or not the US should have nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Here's a viewer's comment.

I think that one thing that gets overlooked in this debate a lot is the fact that at the time the after effects of radiation exposure was not fully understood. The US sent in 250k troops to occupy the bombed cities, with a great number of them suffering the rest or their lives or even dying prematurely.  A vast amount of the citizens were killed not from the initial explosion, but from radiation afterwards. Now knowing the effects 80 years later, it changes how we view the decision vs how it would have been viewed and justified back then. I think with history we look at it from our standpoint too much, and don't consider the views, culture, and morals at the time enough.

Morality is about weighing the costs vs benefits of things, and choose those with more benefits. Our knowledge and assumptions put into the weighing process will affect our moral decisions.

We will say that the bombing is immoral if the bombers knew that it would bring more negative effects to future conscious beings but did it any way for one reason or another.

[alancalverd]

When the bomb was dropped, my dad was exercising a tank squadron in India and the boss's dad was flying in "conventional" B29s in the Pacific, preparing for the air- and seaborne invasion of Japan. The estimated casualty count was 500,000 to 2,000,000 before Allied control could be established, in maybe 2 - 5 years.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki brought the war to a conclusion in a few days with loss of life comparable with that of the conventional bombing of Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg, and an order of magnitude less than Soviet losses in WWII.

However you look at it, it was a spectacular and entirely moral act.

The US sent in 250k troops to occupy the bombed cities, with a great number of them suffering the rest or their lives or even dying prematurely.  A vast amount of the citizens were killed not from the initial explosion, but from radiation afterwards.

Numbers, please. This is a science chatroom.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Numbers, please. This is a science chatroom.

Relax, it's just a chat.
The comment I quoted was commenting on the video. It implies that the number of death by radiation is significantly bigger than number of death by initial explosion, which you can get from the video.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

Answering Absurd Trolley Problems
What do you think about the choices of the Youtuber? Do you think he's consistent with his choices?

You can try it yourself.
https://neal.fun/absurd-trolley-problems/

[alancalverd]

It implies that the number of death by radiation is significantly bigger than number of death by initial explosion, which you can get from the video.

Wrong. But don't let the facts spoil a good argument. Just as a matter of interest, one civilian who survived both bombings (how unlucky can you get?) died in 2010 at the age of 93. The longterm statistics are difficult to establish as the natural incidence of fatal cancer is around 25% but the number of excess cancers among those who were irradiated by the flash but not mechanically or thermally injured seems to be less than 5%.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

one civilian who survived both bombings (how unlucky can you get?) died in 2010 at the age of 93.

Or how lucky, depends on your perspective.

[hamdani yusuf (OP)]

The longterm statistics are difficult to establish as the natural incidence of fatal cancer is around 25% but the number of excess cancers among those who were irradiated by the flash but not mechanically or thermally injured seems to be less than 5%.

Where do those numbers come from?
If someone with fatal cancer caused by radiation dies a bit sooner in a traffic accident, will it still be counted as death by radiation?