Would you kill 6.5 Billion people ?

Big difference between disappear and murder. Murder is bad. Maybe disappear if they are sent to a better place like an episode of the Outer Limits or the Twilight Zone. Why the 6-6.5 billion people? If its all Southerners you would have to be standing at the North pole.

• This reply was modified 8 years, 7 months ago by bnw.

No, I couldn’t just dissappear 6.5 billion people even though I think the world would be a much better place with them gone. Even if I knew they would be going to a better place. I couldn’t make that decision for them. Even if it meant getting rid of all those people who I think deserve to be gone – getting rid of those who are responsible for or willingly contribute to pain and suffering. I couldn’t do it. I couldn’t do what needes to be done.

I could kill all Pitt fans though.

But that’s only about 5 people, tops.

wv wrote:

Why not?

Given that you agree,
that the Biosphere would benefit from
a six-billion-person reduction.

w
v

Well, for one thing, in a couple hundred years, you would just have to do it again. Those 6.5 billion people would have died for no reason other than to punt the problem into the future where it would have to be faced all over again.

Go read Dr. Heidegger’s Experiment.

I think eventually we would end up in more-or-less the same place. But it would perhaps be worth a try, since we are certainly doomed given the trajectory we are on.

I mean, if you could get rid of everyone who thinks violence is a justifiable conflict resolution, it might change things. And the irony would be worth it.

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

I think eventually we would end up in more-or-less the same place. But it would perhaps be worth a try, since we are certainly doomed given the trajectory we are on.

I mean, if you could get rid of everyone who thinks violence is a justifiable conflict resolution, it might change things. And the irony would be worth it.

Welcome aboard. Now who do we vaporize first?

I’m thinkin we start with all Religious-Fundamentalists.
For starters.
That should get us down to, what? 4.5 billion maybe?

Then we eliminate Patriot fans.

w
v

Who gets to live?

wv wrote:

nittany ram wrote:

wv wrote:

Zooey wrote:

I think eventually we would end up in more-or-less the same place. But it would perhaps be worth a try, since we are certainly doomed given the trajectory we are on.

I mean, if you could get rid of everyone who thinks violence is a justifiable conflict resolution, it might change things. And the irony would be worth it.

Welcome aboard. Now who do we vaporize first?

I’m thinkin we start with all Religious-Fundamentalists.
For starters.
That should get us down to, what? 4.5 billion maybe?

Then we eliminate Patriot fans.

w
v

Who gets to live?

Yes, well at least now you are on the genocide-train
with Zooey and Me.

Who gets to live?

Good question. I think about it a lot, LoL.

I prefer to start at the other end —
who gets eliminated first.

I’d start with the religious-fundamentalists.

Any objection to that?

And then all fascists, Republicans, Nazis,
KKK members, and Corporate-Capitalists.

Objections?

Just think of a world without religious fundamentalists.
That alone would make political policies completely different
in the US and Middle-East.
v

Here’s where it get’s tricky.
I would have no problem eliminating all religious fundementalists. But what about “believers” in general? As long as the seed exists then isn’t the possibility of fundementalism taking root always present? Wouldn’t we want our new society to be based on reason rather than faith?

This is the question that precedes genocide.

No, absolutely not.

You could pick any scenario, but oppositional thinking is innate. And some of the things people want to control for are biological and can’t be controlled. Raise people on communes and we’ll still get econo-fascists. Raise people in hyper straight fundamentalist backgrounds and we’ll still get gay and transgender people.

Eliminate people? It’s an abhorrent question.

If the question is ultimately how to improve the planet or our species, there are bunches of ways to approach that other than genocide.

I’d start with all the first born males, unless their house was marked with the blood of a rams coach…

Then I’d kill God. But then the game would end because I was dead.

OK, here’s my play.

I stick with the Angel of Death kill the first born male, but make it retroactive through time.

That means Cain dies before he can kill Abel. That also stops this whole mess:

Cain made love to his wife, and she became pregnant and gave birth to Enoch. Cain was then building a city, and he named it after his son Enoch. 18 To Enoch was born Irad, and Irad was the father of Mehujael, and Mehujael was the father of Methushael, and Methushael was the father of Lamech.

19 Lamech married two women, one named Adah and the other Zillah. 20 Adah gave birth to Jabal; he was the father of those who live in tents and raise livestock. 21 His brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all who play stringed instruments and pipes. 22 Zillah also had a son, Tubal-Cain, who forged all kinds of tools out of[g] bronze and iron. Tubal-Cain’s sister was Naamah.

Also, Abel was a “keeper of flocks” i.e., a sheep fucker. No children. No human race. No overpopulation. Problem solved.

TSRF wrote:

Also, Abel was a “keeper of flocks” i.e., a sheep fucker. No children. No human race. No overpopulation. Problem solved.

I don’t think you can genuinely do all that. I mean, near as I know, retroactive species cleansing is not really possible.

If it were…no John Shaw. Is all I’m sayin.

The talk of disappearing reminds me of the TV series “The Leftovers”. One fifth of the human race disappeared without warning or explanation.

wv wrote:

It might depend on ‘which’ family members ?

w
v

So…you’d bump off the ewe? Better hope she doesn’t read this or it will be mighty awkward around the Thanksgivings Day table.