• Feathercrown@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 month ago

    If we cross a line to stop a bad guy are we any better than him

    Your analysis is correct but I’m so tired of this line in popular discourse and the media. See also:

    • stupidcasey@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      But if everyone killed killers then the relative number of killers go up and you only succeed when everyone is dead.

      • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 month ago

        Wait, is that true?

        k = killers, i = innocents, p = total population, r = killer ratio

        p = k+i

        r = k/(k+i) = k/p

        If an innocent kills a killer: (+1 killer, -1 innocent) from becoming a killer; -1 killer from killing a killer; -1 innocent net change, so r goes up (bad)

        Now that you’re a killer, any time you kill another killer, it’s just -1 killer. r goes down (because the numerator gets smaller faster than the denominator) (good).

        This means that the first time you kill someone is always bad, but it gets better if you kill more people. You can offset the net cost of the first kill this way; if r <= 0.5, killing two people will do it. So you’re right that if everyone kills one person, the world will be full of killers. But this also suggests that the best course of action is for one person to go around and kill every killer, and then themselves, leaving the world temporarily killer-free!