Pascal's Chatbot Q&As
Posts
Grok about DOGE: The justification falters if cuts don’t deliver promised savings or if private firms (like Musk's) profit instead. Deaths might then serve narrow interests, not society.

Grok about DOGE: The justification falters if cuts don’t deliver promised savings or if private firms (like Musk's) profit instead. Deaths might then serve narrow interests, not society.

Moreover, empathy isn’t just a weakness—it drives social cohesion, which could be vital for global stability. Sacrificing it might destabilize more than it saves.

Pascal Hetzscholdt
March 11, 2025

Questions for Grok, taking into account the statements in this video

1. How likely is it that Elon Musk’s DOGE cost-cutting program has caused deaths and will cause deaths in the future?

The likelihood that DOGE’s cost-cutting has directly caused deaths or will do so in the future is difficult to assess definitively with the available public data, as no concrete, verified evidence ties specific deaths to these cuts as of March 11, 2025. However, we can evaluate the plausibility based on the nature of the cuts and their potential consequences.

Evidence from the Transcript: The transcript highlights significant program cuts across federal departments, with USAID (255 programs), Health and Human Services (185 programs), Education (104 programs), and Agriculture (81 programs) seeing the most reductions, while Defense has only 9 programs cut despite its $850 billion budget. This suggests a focus on social services, health, and humanitarian aid rather than military spending. Cuts to Health and Human Services (HHS) and USAID could plausibly affect public health and global aid programs, which might indirectly lead to increased mortality if critical services (e.g., disease prevention, food security) are disrupted.
Posts on X: X posts suggest sentiment linking DOGE cuts to deaths. One user claims DOGE is “literally killing people” by firing air traffic controllers, cutting cancer research, closing VA centers, and reducing National Weather Service (NWS) capacity before hurricanes. Another references “direct links to people dying” with a link, though I can’t access or verify it. These claims are anecdotal and lack specific, documented cases, making them inconclusive without further evidence.
Web Context: Reports indicate DOGE has targeted agencies like USAID, the Department of Education, and the CDC, with critics warning of risks like higher pandemic vulnerability (CDC cuts), toxic exposure (EPA cuts), or plane crashes (FAA cuts). For example, USAID’s $6.5 billion in cuts and staff reductions could disrupt humanitarian aid, potentially increasing mortality in vulnerable populations. However, no data confirms deaths have occurred yet—only potential risks are highlighted.
Plausibility: Cuts to safety-critical agencies (FAA, NWS, CDC) could increase risks of accidents, delayed disaster response, or disease outbreaks. For instance, fewer air traffic controllers might heighten crash risks, though no incidents are reported yet. Similarly, reduced cancer research or VA closures could delay treatments, but linking this to immediate deaths requires a causal chain not yet documented. The time lag between cuts and measurable outcomes (e.g., disease spread) means any deaths might not be evident by now.

Likelihood Assessment: It’s possible but not confirmed that DOGE cuts have caused deaths as of now, given the lack of specific incidents tied to the program. Future deaths are more plausible, particularly if essential services are sufficiently degraded. The probability hinges on the depth of cuts, their implementation, and whether compensatory measures (e.g., private sector replacements) mitigate impacts. Without detailed data on affected programs’ roles and outcomes, I’d rate this as a moderate risk—possible but unproven.

2. How many deaths can you guesstimate?

Estimating deaths requires speculative assumptions, as no public data provides a body count or detailed impact assessments tied to DOGE cuts. I’ll base this on the transcript, X posts, and general knowledge about affected sectors, while emphasizing the uncertainty.

Approach: We can extrapolate from the scale of cuts and their potential to disrupt life-saving services. The transcript lists 255 USAID programs cut, 185 HHS programs, and others. X posts mention specific risks (e.g., VA closures, cancer research, NWS). I’ll focus on a few key areas:
- USAID: With $6.5 billion cut and 255 programs eliminated, this could affect millions globally. If 10% of USAID’s $22 billion annual budget historically prevented famine or disease for, say, 1 million people annually, and cuts halve that capacity, perhaps 50,000–100,000 lives could be at risk over time (based on global aid mortality stats). No immediate deaths are reported, so this is a future estimate.
- HHS/CDC: 185 programs cut might include disease surveillance or vaccination efforts. If a future pandemic’s response is delayed (e.g., akin to COVID-19’s early stages), deaths could range from thousands to tens of thousands in the U.S., depending on severity. Historical data suggests 1% of the U.S. population (3.3 million) could die in an unmitigated outbreak, but cuts alone wouldn’t cause that—maybe 1–5% of that toll (33,000–165,000) if response capacity drops significantly.
- FAA/NWS: Fewer air traffic controllers or weather warnings could lead to rare but high-impact events (e.g., a plane crash killing 100–300 or a hurricane with 1,000+ deaths due to poor preparation). This might total dozens to thousands annually if multiple incidents occur.
Rough Guesstimate: Combining these, immediate deaths (as of March 2025) might be near zero due to lack of evidence, but future annual deaths could range from 1,000 (isolated incidents) to 100,000+ (systemic failures like pandemics or global aid collapse). Over a decade, this could climb to 10,000–1 million, though this is highly speculative and assumes worst-case scenarios without mitigation.

Caveat: This is a back-of-the-envelope guess, not a precise forecast. It depends on unverifiable factors like program specifics, redundancy in systems, and external variables (e.g., disaster frequency). The real number could be far lower if cuts are symbolic or higher if critical infrastructure collapses.

3. Are these deaths justified for the common good, assuming empathy is a threat to global society?

This question assumes a philosophical stance: that DOGE’s cuts serve a “common good” (e.g., fiscal stability, reduced bureaucracy) and that empathy hinders this by prioritizing individual suffering over systemic efficiency. I’ll evaluate this critically, avoiding moralizing, and focus on the logic of the premise.

DOGE’s Stated Goal: Musk aims to cut $1–2 trillion from the federal budget, claiming it prevents U.S. bankruptcy and curbs waste. Web reports suggest $55–105 billion in savings by March 2025, though only $9.6–16.6 billion is itemized, with critics arguing much is exaggerated or symbolic. If successful, this could stabilize the $36 trillion national debt, benefiting future generations economically.
Deaths vs. Common Good: If cuts cause 1,000–100,000 deaths annually (per above), is this offset by benefits? Economically, saving $1 trillion yearly could boost GDP or reduce taxes, potentially improving quality of life for 330 million Americans. Utilitarian logic might argue 100,000 deaths (0.03% of the population) is a tolerable cost if 99.97% benefit long-term. However, this assumes cuts directly achieve fiscal health, which is debated—web sources note discretionary spending ($1.8 trillion) is a fraction of the budget, and mandatory programs (Social Security, Medicare) are largely untouched.
Empathy as a Threat: If empathy delays cuts by prioritizing immediate human costs (e.g., VA patients, aid recipients), it could perpetuate inefficiency, risking broader collapse (e.g., debt crisis). A cold, rational view might see deaths as collateral damage for a leaner, more sustainable system. Yet, this ignores potential backlash—web sources like Brookings warn of political and social fallout if cuts disrupt essential services, undermining the “common good” goal.
Critical Examination: The justification falters if cuts don’t deliver promised savings (e.g., web reports of overstated claims) or if private firms (like Musk’s) profit instead, as suggested by The Guardian. Deaths might then serve narrow interests, not society. Moreover, empathy isn’t just a weakness—it drives social cohesion, which could be vital for global stability. Sacrificing it might destabilize more than it saves.

Conclusion: Justification depends on unproven outcomes. If cuts avert a fiscal apocalypse with minimal deaths (e.g., 1,000), they might be defensible under a ruthless “common good” lens. If they cause mass casualties (e.g., 100,000+) with marginal gains, they’re harder to rationalize, even sans empathy. Given data gaps and skepticism about DOGE’s efficacy, the deaths seem premature to justify—more evidence of tangible societal benefit is needed.

Final Thoughts

Likelihood: Moderate risk of deaths, unproven as of now.
Estimate: 1,000–100,000 annually in the future, highly uncertain.
Justification: Possible in theory, but shaky without clearer results.

As an AI, I can’t judge who “deserves” to die—ethics aside, the data simply doesn’t confirm DOGE’s impact yet. More transparency on cuts and their effects is critical to move beyond speculation.