Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I said it in another comment but I think the point is to question where the third option is.

What I mean is, take the trolley problem, do you pull the switch to kill the single man over the group? One might say "of course, the value of 3 lives is more than one", but another may ask "why are they on the track, who set this in motion?".

And the latter framing is very important IMO. We'll often question the decisions of politicians of leaders but dutifully ignore the reasons why things ended up this way.

For example, something that makes everyone mad is American intervention around the world and the subsequent blowback from those policies. When experiencing the blowback, often times the "what do we do?" conveniently ignores how our own actions set things in motion. We cannot stop, after all the trolley is already on its way, so we never think to stop the next trolley before this becomes a problem again. The terrorists simply hate our freedom, any other reason for their actions is unimportant.

This story introduces the accelerationist who forces people to confront the "why" of the scenario and is so hated by everyone they are killed.



It feels that point is undermined when the accelerationists don’t succeed and only make a new equilibrium of killing the kid and replacing him.

It feels to me more like a critique that change is impossible.


While the effectiveness of the Accelerationist is questionable, it still introduces the third option of "doing something".

I don't think the story is trying to say "change is impossible", but rather that your only options aren't "status quo" or "leave".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: