I’m not even sure it is describing a dystopia. I’ve often wondered how many people would go vegan if we were required to directly participate in the slaughter of animals rather than shrink-wrapping a product called “meat” for mass consumption. It’s far too easy in this day and age to launder morality, to make the uncomfortable effectively invisible so as to not live in a constant state of cognitive dissonance.

Incidentally, I have a friend who decided that he would no longer consume any animal that he had not personally killed at least one example of (e.g. he can eat chicken after he has personally killed one chicken). That was years ago and to this day he remains pescetarian.

It's dystopian at least in the sense that somehow everyone just decides to play along rather than use it as a jumping off point to question institutions. Why does the POTUS have a high likelihood of becoming a war criminal or at least get to inflict death on thousands if not millions? With a governing system like democratic confederalism (which uses delegation instead of representation and builds on free association) there would be no POTUS and there would be no one individual capable of causing so much suffering. There wouldn't be state leaders sending soldiers to their death because the soldiers have the ultimate say.

It's also deeply flawed because it follows a very shallow analysis of human suffering. If we conveniently ignore those without empathy (as the AI does in the story), taking a life is a traumatic experience and to be forced to do it so viscerally and to be forced to do it so detached from any actual purpose just makes it worse.

The euthanasia example comes to mind: yes, removing a feeding tube likely causes more suffering than killing under anesthesia but using a knife serves no purpose other than as a deterrent. I understand the author's personal situation and personal decisions regarding his son color this portrayal but it feels more like the author stepping on a soapbox than a coherent part of the story.

I guess you could argue that the AI emphasizing life rather than lack of suffering can be explained with the four words but the story doesn't frame it as a genie problem. There's no need to use sacrificial animals for example except for the implication that they're the greatest deterrent for the given person - but the story doesn't show deterrents that don't involve slaughter. Presumably people who wouldn't be squeamish about the blood sacrifices are somehow excluded from positions of power.

If anything I think the problem the story ignores is that the exact people in positions of that cause the deaths of millions are the people that would likely go through with a blood sacrifice in order to maintain their power. If someone is willing to murder a person with a knife in order to be the POTUS, wouldn't that exclude them from being asked to murder a person with a knife to deter them from causing the loss of lives at the push of a button? I'm pretty sure the idea isn't even novel, I recall a hypothetical of the POTUS being forced to kill a person with their own hands in order to launch nukes (which would likely spell death for millions if not billions) for example.

Also, the author* can have a little death (as a treat!)

*(I am the author of the story, to be clear)

La petite mort? Yes, please.

Thank you for your thoughtful short story.