I think that the relationship between (number of deaths) and (amount of despair/psychological impact) isn’t linear, and differs depending on the psychological proximity that one has to the act of killing. For a very abstract example, let’s say that killing in person has a square-root relationship with psychological impact; killing 10,000 people is about ten times as psyche-breaking as killing 100 people. Even that is probably inexact for small numbers; the multiplicative difference between killing 1 person vs 100 people, and killing 100 people vs 10,000 people, might well be different. Killing but button, however, may have a logarithmic relationship: it’s only three times as bad to kill 1,000,000 people as it is to kill 1,000.
Additionally, consider why such a good and decent officer might kill: because in the moment, he is convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He begins full of fervor, but as the act continues, he may grow weary, or the hormones which contributed to his enthusiasm may wear off, as the killing stretches long into the night. He may question if killing this next person is strictly necessary, or if maybe, just maybe, he could stop at 69,000, or let that child live while killing everyone after him.
I don’t doubt that there are killers for whom killing again is easier—pyschopaths, certainly, and relatively psychologically normal people who are convinced of the inhumanity of their enemies—but we are talking about a good and decent officers, killing civillians for the greater good. There are some similarities, but there are also a great many differences.
It could actually be the other way around—an exponential decay. You would be horrified by killing one person, but as the numbers grow, the killings get more impersonal and therefore easier. However, killing a billion people one at a time would still hurt as much as killing one person times a billion.
Actually, it’s probably more of a twisted, jumbled mess of a correlation that no one has the time, resources, or heart to untangle.
Actually, it’s probably more of a… hold on.
[EDIT: I had originally made a very detailed graph out of characters, but it didn’t format correctly when I posted, so...]
There! A skewed S-curve with a negative exponential progression!
However, killing a billion people one at a time would still hurt as much as killing one person times a billion.
Probably not, after the first ten you probably stop feeling anything. After the first twenty you start comparing their “performance” dying. By a hundred you’re probably coming up with creative means of execution.
I think that the relationship between (number of deaths) and (amount of despair/psychological impact) isn’t linear, and differs depending on the psychological proximity that one has to the act of killing. For a very abstract example, let’s say that killing in person has a square-root relationship with psychological impact; killing 10,000 people is about ten times as psyche-breaking as killing 100 people. Even that is probably inexact for small numbers; the multiplicative difference between killing 1 person vs 100 people, and killing 100 people vs 10,000 people, might well be different. Killing but button, however, may have a logarithmic relationship: it’s only three times as bad to kill 1,000,000 people as it is to kill 1,000.
Additionally, consider why such a good and decent officer might kill: because in the moment, he is convinced of the righteousness of his cause. He begins full of fervor, but as the act continues, he may grow weary, or the hormones which contributed to his enthusiasm may wear off, as the killing stretches long into the night. He may question if killing this next person is strictly necessary, or if maybe, just maybe, he could stop at 69,000, or let that child live while killing everyone after him.
I don’t doubt that there are killers for whom killing again is easier—pyschopaths, certainly, and relatively psychologically normal people who are convinced of the inhumanity of their enemies—but we are talking about a good and decent officers, killing civillians for the greater good. There are some similarities, but there are also a great many differences.
It could actually be the other way around—an exponential decay. You would be horrified by killing one person, but as the numbers grow, the killings get more impersonal and therefore easier. However, killing a billion people one at a time would still hurt as much as killing one person times a billion.
Actually, it’s probably more of a twisted, jumbled mess of a correlation that no one has the time, resources, or heart to untangle.
Actually, it’s probably more of a… hold on.
[EDIT: I had originally made a very detailed graph out of characters, but it didn’t format correctly when I posted, so...]
There! A skewed S-curve with a negative exponential progression!
Probably not, after the first ten you probably stop feeling anything. After the first twenty you start comparing their “performance” dying. By a hundred you’re probably coming up with creative means of execution.
“A single death is a tragedy; a million deaths is a statistic”—usually attributed to Stalin.