About

10^100 Shrimp vs. 1 Human refers to viral discourse surrounding a Substack article published by self-described rationalist Kantian PhD student Florence (@morallawwithin). The post lays out a series of thought experiments in which the reader is tasked with being a "Shrimp Savior" who can save 10^100 shrimp from being tortured, first by giving up a bag of Skittles candy, then by driving to press a button that ends the torture. The author's intent with the essay is to prove that while human life is greatly valuable, it is not infinitely valuable, and that people should not flinch from reflecting on "icky" thought experiments like those involving trade-offs between lives or utilitarian calculations. The essay drew criticism online from people who found Florence's writing patronizing, with some commenters criticizing the writer's tendency to presuppose irrationality on the part of the readers who disagree with them. Other internet users posted memes and jokes that reflected on other viral thought experiments like The Breakfast Question, the Trolley Problem and Will You Push The Button.

Origin

On July 19th, 2025, X^[1] user @morallawwithin posted a poll asking, "RATIONALITY TEST: Would you rather save a human stranger’s life, or save 10^100 shrimp from being unbearably tortured for 10 minutes each?" The post gathered over 36,000 views and 98 likes in three days.

On July 20th, the user posted an article to their Substack^[7] Moral Law Within, laying out a shrimp-related thought experiment meant to prove that human life is highly but not infinitely valuable. The post promoting the article on X^[2] gathered over 3 million views and 900 likes in two days.

The essay argues that most people’s moral intuitions are shaped less by ethical reasoning and more by what feels nice to say. Through a series of "Shrimp Savior” thought experiments, the author first argues that it is morally obligatory to give up a bag of Skittles to prevent 10¹⁰ sentient shrimp from enduring unbearable torture.

In "Shrimp Savior 2: The Shrimple Choice," the obligation becomes even clearer. If you'd give up Skittles, you should drive a few miles to press a button that stops them from suffering.

In "Shrimp Savior 3: The Shrimpossible Dilemma," you're an immortal human in a stable world where, once every eon, 10¹⁰ shrimp will be tortured unless you drive a few miles to press a button. The author argues that driving poses a tiny cumulative risk of causing someone else's death, but you're still morally obligated to save the shrimp.

This sets up the essay's broader conclusion: People routinely accept similar risks (like driving) for trivial reasons such as buying Skittles, which reveals they don't actually value human life infinitely, just very highly. The author then urges readers to stop flinching from "icky" ethical questions (like those involving trade-offs between lives or utilitarian calculations) and to align their moral reasoning with their actual behavior.

Spread

Several internet users criticized @morallawwithin's reasoning, including X^[3] user @MasterTimBlais, who argued on July 20th, 2025, that Florence arbitrarily privileges one moral intuition (that shrimp suffering matters) over another (that human life outweighs shrimp). @MasterTimBlais then argues that a more intuitive basis would be to think that "since a human life plausibly outweighs the 10^100 shrimp, a bag of skittles must outweigh 10^10 shrimp."

On July 20th, X^[4] user @politicalmath tweeted, "there are not 10^100 atoms in the observable universe. If the shrimp have become so numerous that there are 10^100 of them, they are a plague. They are a disease on this universe and you have a moral duty to destroy them." The post gathered over 6,000 likes in two days.

On July 21st, 2025, X^[5] user @Gravantus tweeted a Philosophy Quarterly article by Saul Smilansky titled, "Should We Sacrifice The Utilitarians First?" to jokingly criticize @morallawwithin's essay. The post gathered over 20,000 likes in a day.

Also on July 21st, X^[6] user @LemmySmackett posted a humorous dialogue where a person is posed with @morallawwithin's Shrimp Dilemma, only to repeatedly confuse it with other meme-famous thought experiments.

"Okay, so imagine a magic button."

"I'm imagining the button."

"If you press the button--"

"What color is it?"

"It's the only button. It doesn't matter what color it is."

"Nah, I ain't falling for that again. Last time there was a red button and a blue button--"

"That's a… https://t.co/sj2gAvdLDD

— Storyteller Lemmy (@LemmySmackett) July 22, 2025

Various Examples

Search Interest

Unavailable.

External References