Skip Navigation

Severe moral dilemma!

Travel Forums Off Topic Severe moral dilemma!

Page

Last Post

31. Posted by tway (Travel Guru 7273 posts) 9y

Quoting Mr Gee

You'd have 500,000+ people all teleporting inside Fort Knox to try and steal the gold, let alone anything else. Nothing would be safe. You could teleport in and steal Nuculear weapons, just like that, and then teleport somewhere else, leave it to explode in 5seconds, and still be safely on the otherside of the world when it went off. Prisons and law would be irrelevant. How the feck do you catch a murderer in London who is only at the scene for 3seconds, leaves no trace except a bullet wound, having come from Tokyo, dumped the gun somewhere in Alaska and being in Buenos Aires barely 10seconds after leaving Japan? a
And Plunder (and to please Phil, Rape and Pilage) would be enormous.

bit dramatic don't you think? do you REALLY think people in this world are THAT fucked up? haha if so, maybe its not a good idea to leave your house, let alone travel the world! gulp!

People do rediculous things already - imagine if they had what amounts to carte blance to get away with murder? Literally? It would be nice to live in a world where we didn't have to worry about such things, but unfortunately it's not the case. :(

And I agree with Rich on the no-more-secluded-places point. Teleportation would turn the world into a great, big trash bin, what with people overrunning secluded spots and leaving their trace behind. It would be absolute mayhem. Making travel easier and cheaper isn't always a good thing.

32. Posted by Gelli (Travel Guru 2457 posts) 9y

call me crazy, but i think feeding people all over the world for free would be a good thing to do, and to be fair, i'd rather do that than live in a world driven by consumerism and profit making.

Your crazy

No, i actually agree with you 100%. It would be wonderful, and many, many years in the future, we may even acheive it, though I (sadly) honestly doubt it will happen. The problem is that at the moment, the world is just not set up for a "simple" life. Society is not ready for total freedom. Whilst in the long term, that is likely to happen, without abolishing all kinds of commerce and totally changing EVERYBODIES way of thinking, that won't happen.

At the moment, people are driven by collecting things (be they pieces of paper with numbers written on, or material goods) and by consumerism. Even people in really poor countries dream of being able to afford extra things. Status symbols. Sure, there are a few (and a very small few, percentage wise) people around world who have no consumer or material requirements, but not many.

bit dramatic don't you think? do you REALLY think people in this world are THAT fucked up?

You don't? Do you really have so much faith in human nature that if everybody had complete freedom of movement, nobody would abuse it? If only 1million people thought of doing such a thing, it would be amazing. Percentage wise it's irrelevant. Actually, I would expect probably billions of people to have similar ideas (of varying scales, admittedly), or get them over the course of a few months or so.

People aren't really that fucked up. Rather we are all programmed to acquire stuff. And if you gave everybody in the world a way to acquire whatever they wanted without any chance of getting caught, most would. Put it this way - If somebody in the street came up to you, and absolutely no strings attached, offered you 10,000euro (or pounds, dollars, yen, baht, or whetever currency is relevant) there and then, who can honestly say they wouldn't take it? Being able to travel anywhere, just like that, without anyway of being caught is essentially the same thing on a grander scale.

If such a thing was introduced next week, next year, and essentially "just like that", it requires 100% morailty and honesty in every human being on the planet. Even if only 0.0001% of the planets population used it to there own advantage (and half of them wouldn't even be thinking criminally, just in terms of survival), society would break down more or less instantaneously. No if's or buts, only when.

If you did such an experiement today, I honestly doubt that society would last a month. A week would be a major achievement, and If the planet survived 6months, it would be beyond even the most optimistic of "expert" guesses.*

haha if so, maybe its not a good idea to leave your house, let alone travel the world! gulp!

What makes you think it would still be your house? You sure as heck wouldn't be safe in it if anybody could just appear there. And as soon as somebody appeared who liked it and was prepared to fight for it, it wouldn't be yours anymore.

If you believe in human nature to think that wouldn't happen, just look at what happened in New Orleans during Katrina. That involved one threat which should have united everybody. Nobody really had an opposing interest but to save the city. Most people left. Of the the small number that remained, police and firemen (obviously not all) deserted their posts to save themselves/their family/belongings. People ganged up for protection. Looting was rife. People were being shot if they were even suspected of possibly trespassing. It was chaos. The human survival instinct is both very strong, and manifests it in strange ways.
Heck, if you go to any supermarket in the Uk on Christmas eve, people are stocking up in a mad panic and fighting over things like bread. People are stocking up "just in case", and in that case, people know that they will be able to shop again in, at most, 2 days.

Basically, if you remove commerce and materialism - and the human instinct, and all human records and knoweldge of them for it - from everybody, and completely, then your idea might work, and the carbon emmisions would drop. If not, the world is doomed.

  • I did a 3month course a couple of years ago roughly about human nature and pscychology in disaster, where the premis of all debate was something very similar, which is why i have so many thoughts on it [most of which i'm not going to bring in here]. By the end, our most optimistic - I repeat, most optimistic - scenario was that the planet would survive for about 27hours. Some people had it down to 8-10minutes and thought that was still too high.

And yes, all that is gloomy and a sad indication of human life. I can't help that. It's true.

33. Posted by mohit_sa (Full Member 59 posts) 9y

Mr Gee,

Even if we do torch the cute bunnies, we as humans will not be a happy lot.We'll still want more and would want to torch tigers and elephants and zebras to try and teleport us to the moon or mars, perhaps.

So I'd say, leave the bunnies alone. I agree they're never under the fear of extinction, going by the rate they reproduce, but still, lets not try to reduce a world problem by creating another. I know PETA will have a field day.

Regards,

Mohit

34. Posted by Mel. (Travel Guru 4567 posts) 9y

Quoting wouterrr

I think a human being is more important then some bunny. we are at the top of the foodchain. and besides, we even eat the animals and put them in cages, is that good?

There are things living in jungles, that would eat us, but we would not eat them.
Does that not mean, that they are at the top of the food chain? Or are there other factors, that determine what is at the top of the food chain?;)
Not that it really matters, what is at the top of the food chain. Teleporting would be very convenient.

[ Edit: Edited on May 2, 2007, at 12:06 PM by Mel. ]

35. Posted by Brendan (Respected Member 1824 posts) 9y

I think it's not so much a food chain, but a food web or circle.

About teleportation I think people are going a bit overboard here... haha First off I disagree with you Gelli that things would go to hell for a few reasons:

  • Not everyone would have one of the machines... they wouldn't be like televisions where every household as nine or ten. If the technology for teleportation is developed it would be immediately controlled by the governments... because most technology is developed by governments for war. The country in control of the technology would use it for moving soldiers and weapons around the world. A very efficient method I have to say... Eventually it would move into the consumer market. Controlled very extensively by government bodies. There would be a teleportation "port" in replace of aeroports.

  • Another reason things wouldn't go to hell as you say is because the way teleportation works (in theory, for now). You need two parts to the machine, the sending and the receiving. You can't just jump in and push in co-ordinates to the summit of Mt.Everest. There would have to be a receiving machine ON mt.Everest.

  • Another reason I am going to assume would be cost. The cost would inhibit people from just placing them every where and anywhere.

I think peoples thoughts on people committing murder and getting away with it are unfounded. You don't need a teleportation machine to do that. And also just because there is a machine that let's you go one place to another almost instantly doesn't mean you want to kill people... sheesh, I wouldn't want to live in your world

Really Interesting conversation by the way! I like it

36. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 9y

So once this invention has been let loose on the world ... the real challenge remains: you will still need a visa :)

37. Posted by Mr Gee (Budding Member 91 posts) 9y
  • I did a 3month course a couple of years ago roughly about human nature and pscychology in disaster, where the premis of all debate was something very similar, which is why i have so many thoughts on it [most of which i'm not going to bring in here]. By the end, our most optimistic - I repeat, most optimistic - scenario was that the planet would survive for about 27hours. Some people had it down to 8-10minutes and thought that was still too high.

Hahaha man! you're class should lighten up a bit! seriously! i agree with Brendan, if people wanted to steal and kill they could, and they do.
i think with any new creation, there'll be a minority of people that would try use it for personal gain, but the majority would use it for its real purpose, to make life easier. It's a matter of weighing up the pros/cons, i think a machine like this could be a lot of fun, beneficial for humanity and a break for our poor old planet.
But to be honest, we're sort of straying from the question, it was more a question on the moral implications of shovelling rabbits into a fire for evolutionary gain, not really what affect a machine like this may have on society........

38. Posted by Gelli (Travel Guru 2457 posts) 9y

First off I disagree with you Gelli that things would go to hell for a few reasons:

  • Not everyone would have one of the machines...
  • Another reason things wouldn't go to hell as you say is because the way teleportation works (in theory, for now).
  • Another reason I am going to assume would be cost.

Hey Brendan. If those three suppositions are corect (plus the obvious huge time frame for a useful roll-out of the technology around the world, and assuming that it doesn't have to be powered by anything which emits carbon in the process), then I would agree with you completely. Things would be fine(ish), life progresses as normal, and it would just be advanced technology in the same way that airplanes have been.

However, for such a huge carbon reduction, and to fulfil the would allow us to teleport anywhere in the world, whenever you wanted function, it more or less has to work using a single (portable) machine and also be extremely widespread/accessible. And that's where the problem starts.

Hahaha man! you're class should lighten up a bit! seriously! i agree with Brendan, if people wanted to steal and kill they could, and they do.

The assumption is (and it's the same one I've made here) that the technology is available for free, for everybody on the planet, more or less instantaneously (impractical and unlikely sure, but that's the basis of assumption), and THAT's where the trouble starts.

If a teleport device came in slowly (as with most technologies, and also starting off hugely expensively and gradually getting cheaper, as is the norm) using gateways as opposed to working anywhere, and evolved, there would be no real problems. However, the time frame for that to have such a big decrease on carbon emmissions, even if started this year, would be far too long to save us.

If you think about it, what percentage of the worlds population has regular access to airplanes, even 100years after their invention? Huge swathes don't for various socio-economic (and politcial) reasons. Heck, chunks don't yet have access to motor engines.

But to be honest, we're sort of straying from the question, it was more a question on the moral implications of shovelling rabbits into a fire for evolutionary gain, not really what affect a machine like this may have on society........

Surely burning bunnies would produce carbon? Can't we kind of kill them using some strange solar or hydro powered carbon free device? Can we maybe drown the bunnies to provide our power?

And I have to ask again:
Mel - what makes you think I agree with airplane travel?!

39. Posted by Peter (Admin 5789 posts) 9y

Quoting Mr Gee

Right, hypothetically speaking....... if you were in the position where you could give the 'go ahead' for a project that would allow us to teleport anywhere in the world, whenever you wanted, consiquentally cutting carbon emissions by aroung 60% would you do it?

Incidentally, air travel accounts for only about 3% of global carbon emissions :) If

So I'm not sure that it is worth killing all those bunnies for that..

40. Posted by Mr Gee (Budding Member 91 posts) 9y

i was thinking that it would be used as an alternative to most forms of travel really, boats, cars, freight trains, lorries.... with everything else, it'd clock up to a pretty high percentage i guess