You fail to understand that society is not comprised only by rational actors and is more complex than a simple if-else statement. Adding one more thing to spread fear and death is redundant. On a massive scale this ends up being at best a PR disaster for the people backing it up. Besides, you already have general prediction markets already out there working like Augur as I mentioned earlier. What are your thoughts on that?
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, December 18, 2018 6:47 AM, grarpamp <grarp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > creating a tool to murder people > > No. > > AP is really only invoked as legitimate defensive action > to aggression, as would any other existing and well > calibrated natural response to same. > > Most fail to recognize the important early mechanism of AP... > that well before such defensive measures need or are ever > applied, before any exact prediction is made, an AP system > properly acts in its native form as a strong and escalating > discouragement to those considering or acting out various > levels of aggression, theft, force, murder, etc upon others. > > Simply put, any would be aggressor would be crazy > to risk continuing down a course of action that might > attract any number of rational funders and predictors > into the market. > > For the vast majority of situations, the very few proof > of functions warranted upon defense aside, > AP could be a rather effective and in fact nonviolent > tool for change for the better > > Two other often noted scenarios are... > > - Boss equivalents playing game of Mutual Assured Destruction > among themselves... often a generally pointless expense to begin with. > > - Random statistical noise of cheap / easy predictions accepted by > nutbags, crack addicts, oppurtunity, fame, etc. That's the game called > life, no different than all of history, AP is agnostic and moot there. > Try funding predictions for mental and physical healthcare, work, > housing, defense, whatever, to lower those rates of occurance. >