I'm sure most of us know/have watched the film Terminator 2.
(highly recommended if you haven't seen it!)
Here's the briefest of descriptions to the part of the film that is relevant - to illustrate the moral dilemma/hierarchy, issue.
Sarah asks the Terminator unit (Arnie), about who's responsible for building Skynet.
(Skynet is the computer system that leads to a nuclear war and from the that, 'the rise of the machines' to fight against humanity).
...The Terminator tells her that it is Miles Bennett Dyson, a high-ranking employee at Cyberdyne Systems, who will invent a new microprocessor that will revolutionize the entire military computer system.
It learns at such a fast rate that it becomes self-aware.
As the humans try to shut it down, Skynet starts a nuclear strike that plunges the Earth's nations into a nuclear war.
_Sarah goes after Dyson, to kill him (but she finds can't).
Terminator arrives and tells Dyson that he is a machine sent from the future.
The Terminator convinces Dyson to destroy the chip prototype & the mechanical arm (from the previous Terminator film) in his lab.
(he uses the empirical evidence of him being a terminator unit).
That is the only way to stop the development of Skynet.
..a little later...
A SWAT team surrounds the building & starts shooting at them.
This results in a fatally wounded Dyson.
Dyson offers to hold up the SWAT team by holding on to a detonator that will destroy the lab._
The Dyson character in the film, when presented with empirical evidence of how the development of skynet will end, had to make a decision. (to help destroy his work, or not).
HE HAD NO MORAL DILEMMA.
Even thought he was passionate about his work and the project as a whole, once he was shown _the consequences of his actions, his passion, his own moral hierarchy would NOT ALLOW him to sit idly by and do nothing to stop the project.
He paid for this moral decision, with his life.
A true hero.
He had no need to question his moral hierarchy when presented with the facts.
He preferred to destroy what he was passionate about, rather than let it hurt others (the world, his own kids, etc).
I wonder what the creators of DPoS would do if presented with strong enough evidence that the DPoS social media they'd created (or copied and created clones from), were psychologically detrimental to every...single...user....(including themselves)?
Would the money, 'the power', override any moral hierarchy?
Would they even have a moral hierarchy that poses the question to them ?
Psychopaths and narcissists would not have this moral dilemma, even if 'empirical evidence' was presented.
They might make a 'moral decision' - or what looks like a moral decision, if it benefited them in some way....i.e not really a moral decision, just the appearance of such.
Those who are not in the cluster B range of personality disorders, but have been 'corrupted' by the environment so as to now express the darker traits that have been brought to the surface by being in the DPoS environment, could find the moral decision difficult.
Depending on their own moral hierarchy of values and how clear they were about them.
('Dyson', in the film Terminator 2, for example - had no such moral dilemma).
DPoS is not skynet (thank fuck!)
It IS, however - a construct that leads to - or encourages others to, or empowers others to, express all the 'smaller' (darker) character traits of being human.
I wonder what the witnesses would do if presented with such evidence? (across all DPoS)
DPoS is not skynet, (thank fuck), but the witnesses who keep DPoS up and running are - if my my arguments are correct - supporting the continuation of an ecosystem that is severely psychologically damaging to all users (including themselves if they aren't already the 'cluster b' types).
Now it's all finally clear to me, the drive to publish has dissipated somewhat.
Not because it doesn't hold value and worth a read for people to obtain clarity about DPoS - it very much does- but due to ALL DPoS's impending implosion, as it is now, it it really worth it?
(this is a 99% guarantee in my opinion).
I mean, what's the bloody point, if it's not around for much longer? (DPoS).
What do you recon?
To publish, or not to publish?- that is the question.
(a lot of editing to do)...
We'll see, I guess...
