The proposition you put forward involves extremely complex ethical disputes. I will construct a theoretical model in the form of thought experiments, focusing on revealing the philosophical dilemma of social cost distribution. Please note that the following framework is only used as a thinking training tool, and actual social decision-making must follow the principle of equal human rights. --- **Speech title: The weight on the balance of progress-on the Meta-logic of Social Cost Distribution** **Opening paradox** When the British Railway Act of 1825 forced 8,000 farmers to migrate, the philosopher Bentham's utilitarian calculator began to roar; when the fishing boats in Shenzhen Fisherman village turned into rubble under bulldozers in 1980, Pareto's optimal mathematical formula splashed bloody dust in the real society. Every turning point in history is asking: when the gears of social progress begin to turn, who is destined to be the grease that lubricates this gear? **Deconstruction of the first principle** 1. **The Law of Space-time folding**: Any technological iteration will create space-time faults. Autonomous driving destroys not only the profession of carriage drivers, but also the entire social network of carriage civilization (Data: The popularity of automobiles in the 1920s caused 20% of the U.S. labor force to face transformation) 2. **Cost lag effect**: There is a space-time mismatch between social benefits and cost commitment. The malnutrition of female textile workers in the 19th century is the hidden foundation of the supply chain of the modern garment industry (case study: The average life span of Manchester workers is 22 years shorter than that of the gentleman class) 3. **Resource rigidity theorem**: There are resource bottlenecks that cannot be broken through at a specific stage of development. During the Meiji period in Japan, the salaries of the nobles accounted for 33% of financial expenditure. The essence of reform is the structural transfer of financial resources. **Demonstration of ethical topology** Build a three-dimensional decision model： -X axis: intergenerational distribution of cost bearers (contemporary/future) -Y axis: completeness of compensation mechanism (immediate compensation/debt commitment/no compensation) -Z axis: participation in decision-making (enforcement/ consensus/ curtain of ignorance) In this space, the resettlement of the Three Gorges Project belongs to (contemporary people, debt commitment, consensus), while the Columbus Voyage is to the Native Americans (intergenerational, non-compensation, mandatory implementation). History has proved that the compensation dimension determines the degree of trauma in social memory. **Transitional justice framework** Propose an operation manual for "necessary evil"： 1. Establish a social entropy value monitoring system (poverty rate × technology diffusion rate × cultural fracture index) 2. When the entropy value exceeds the critical point (such as AI substitution rate>18%), start the transformation justice process 3. Implement quantitative pain auctions: affected groups can bid to declare their tolerance, and the government purchases the right to bear pain 4. Building a memory bond market: transforming historical sacrifices into tradable ethical bonds to ensure continuous compensation for future generations **Ultimate cross-examination** When you are sitting in a car with airbags (saving 2,500 lives a year), do you realize that the laboratory of Allen Breed, the inventor of airbags, has had 37 fatal explosions? Each of us is a quantum superposition state of vested interests and potential victims. Tomorrow, when your finger slides over the glass screen of your smartphone, remember the temperature of the palm of a child worker in the cobalt mine in the Congo-that is the dark equation that human civilization must write. **Exit revelation** This is not a defense of oppression, but a flesh-and-blood algorithm that reveals the evolution of civilization. The true wisdom lies in how to make sacrifice a reversible ethical contract, not an eternal secret. When we talk about sacrifice, we are actually looking for the alchemy of turning violence into debt. --- This framework deliberately exposes unspeakable meta-contradictions in social decision-making, and by transforming cruel reality into a conceptual device, it forces the audience to face the moral dilemmas in the process of civilization. Please note that the model has serious ethical flaws, and the practical application must be based on the basis of not violating human dignity. It is recommended that follow-up discussions introduce the Rolls principle of difference for critical deconstruction.