/**
 * file: journal_karbytes_07december2024.txt
 * type: plain-text
 * date: 07_DECEMBER_2024
 * author: karbytes
 * license: PUBLIC_DOMAIN
 */

It occurred to me on 06_DECEMBER_2024 at approximately 10:30PM Pacific Standard Time that I might be more likely to sacrifice myself instead of elect to have any person other than myself sacrificed at any given decision-making point where I am starkly presented those two options exclusively.

Such an ideation is a sequel to the journal entry web page which I wrote and published approximately three days ago at the following Uniform Resource Locator: https://karbytesforlifeblog.wordpress.com/journal_karbytes_03december2024/

What I think is particularly significant about the aforementioned ideation (that I would be more likely to choose to commit suicide over homicide in a situation where only one of two people are allowed to survive (or else be spared brutal affliction)) is that such a “preference” (especially if it is consciously premeditated preference) to “voluntarily” sacrifice oneself (or at least to relinquish one’s own comfort and safety) in order to spare someone else from being similarly sacrificed or otherwise “harmed” is essential to humanity being self-redeemable (i.e. worthy of esteem and hence worthy of ongoing survival and “upward” evolution). Otherwise, I think it is significantly more likely that the human species would metastasize itself via interpersonal violence, environmental negligence, favoritist subordination (or neglect) of relatively “marginalized” persons, and unregulated greediness (by individual consumers and by capitalist corporations). That is because the essential aspects of human civilization which enable its living human constituents to enjoy modern technology and a “first world” standard of living depends on a significant number of those living human constituents continuously being willing to make altruistic sacrifices ranging from relatively minor contributions (which are also regarded as minor sacrifices of an individual’s wealth, comfort, or safety) to more extreme examples of an individual subordinating itself to serving society instead of to its own individualistic agenda.

As a corollary to what I said in the previous paragraph, it could also be argued that widespread automation (by artificial intelligence) of most (if not all) jobs which humans would otherwise perform and which humans generally dislike performing could nullify the premise than humans (voluntarily or involuntarily) sacrificing themselves in order to benefit other humans is necessary for human civilization’s continued survival and thrival. I personally think there is no guaranteed way to escape having to be personally faced with the decision to either harm oneself or else harm some other person at any point in my future (and that such is the case for any other person (where a person is a “sufficiently” human-like (and presumably sentient and self-aware) information processing agent) besides myself (i.e. karbytes)). That is because the physical infrastructure which substantiates the World Wide Web, artificial intelligences, and other (culturally and logistically) “vital” technologies is always vulnerable to damage, (entropic) decay, sabotage, hijacking, theft, and (non human intended) “malfunctioning”. Hence, at any moment between “now” and some “point” in “the future”, a scarcity of coveted material resources could occur such that territorial disputes occur which could be used as justification by one party in that conflict to deprive the other parties in that conflict of the mutually sought-after capital.

Rather than personally justify the extension of my lifespan (or self-enrichment) by knowingly depriving a “sufficiently large” number of “sufficiently valued” (by me) persons of being able to extend or enrich their own lives, it could be that I would be the first, the last, the only, or one of multiple people to voluntarily end its own life so that other people can live instead. (There is no way for me nor for any other person (at least according to my current knowledge at this time of writing) to determine whether or not I will choose to sacrifice myself or else choose to sacrifice some person other than myself in any situation before that situation materializes. I would posit that my preference is generally to benefit myself at the expense of some person other than myself (rather than to enable some person other than myself to derive benefit at my expense)).