For me it is Cellular Automata, and more precisely the Game of Life.
Imagine a giant Excel spreadsheet where the cells are randomly chosen to be either “alive” or “dead”. Each cell then follows a handful of simple rules.
For example, if a cell is “alive” but has less than 2 “alive” neighbors it “dies” by under-population. If the cell is “alive” and has more than three “alive” neighbors it “dies” from over-population, etc.
Then you sit back and just watch things play out. It turns out that these basic rules at the individual level lead to incredibly complex behaviors at the community level when you zoom out.
It kinda, sorta, maybe resembles… life.
There is colonization, reproduction, evolution, and sometimes even space flight!
I’ve watched like 10 minutes and I hate it. Peter Singer is a very controversial figure as it is, on top of that the guy in the video comes off as super condescending to me and I can’t stand watching him for longer. Me personally, I don’t think it’s “immoral” to not give money to charity. And terms like immoral or evil are usually defined by the society you live in and not some random philosopher. And I bet there are good reasons his radical ideas in “Famine, Affluence, and Morality” did not get embedded in our society yet.
I do not take issue with anything you said (your opinion is as valid as mine) - up until your last sentence, which piqued my interest.
You seem to be implying that Mr Singer’s “radical ideas” are weak, invalid, or beneath consideration because our society hasn’t embedded them yet. I would like to respond that I think the value of a radical idea cannot, and probably should not, be measured by how well society accepts it. For example, there are a some pretty famous, radical ideas from this rabbi a couple thousand years ago that have totally failed to be embedded in our society, yet his radical ideas arguably still have significant merit. I am thinking specifically of the radical idea of kindness and peace expressed in “turning the other cheek”, an idea we, as a society, have for all intents and purposes rejected.
Otherwise, I would also like to remind you that the OP just asked for ideas that blew our minds. Mr Singer’s idea, when I heard it for the first time, blew mine and I thought it fit the brief.
I’d say that charity as it exists in a capitalist society is in itself evil, and contributing to it is no better then buying indulgences.
Charity is a way to confirm and reinforce the capitalistic oppresion of the poor by the rich. That’s why it is widely promoted by churches whose interest has always been aligned with that of the wealthy and powerful. It’s a magct trick that makes rich people look generous to the public while giving them an occasion to pretend that they are good people in a taught world