How many deaths would be ok?

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
The title is a bit misleading, as death rarely is "ok" in the mind of regular folk(assuming regular folk are regular folk, yei for meta), but on to the point;

How many deaths would be ok, to ensure the survival of the human race?

Is a million people killed ok, to save the 6 billion?
How about, as Eddie Murphy would say, half?
Would you even go as far as say that it's ok to kill 99.9% of humanity, to ensure that the rest have a possibility to keep the race going?

That's the basis of it really, but when you dwelve into it, it becomes a bit more morally blurry. Moblurry. Would it be ok to kill off starving nations, to remove the need for help and as such, ensure better conditions for thriving countries?

Think you get the point there and can indeed add your own scenarios, including that of kill the poor, save the rich, which many future world sci-fi base themselves on, or indeed could go the other way and ask if killing 5 people is ok to save just one.

I personally think that any amount is ok in the interet of human survival, but it conflicts rather badly with the bawic thought that everyone deserves a chance at life and only their own actions can deny it. From a completely calculative POV, i would be in support of the 99.9% category.

This is ofcourse an opinion based conversation and as such will most likely cause a lot of flaming and pulling of hair, but eventually everyone is right in their own opinion ;)
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
It might make me an arsehole but if I heard on the news that a million people were killed in say Iran in a pre-emptive nuclear attack, to stop Iran launching a Nuke that would of caused World War 3 and the end of the world I would be fine with that. I think hearing the same about anywhere other than the UK would pass me by if I am honest.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Same amount, different story;

Million UK citizens were killed due to having a virus that was spreading too violently to contain and would cause the whole nation(or indeed world) to be infected and/or dead in days.

Same reaction? Outrage? Wrong?

It's an interesting thing to think about, even on a personal level; where do i draw the line ;)

Personally again, i wouldn't draw a line between strangers and family even, i tend to treat both with equal criteria.

Also intresting if indeed it WOULD make you an asshole. You are afterall thinking about the good of humanity as a whole, even if you accept the death of a million people.
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
I would be more affected if 50 people I know were among the 1 million, but if it was literally a case of those deaths saving the rest of the world then I think I could accept it. It's like the guy jumping on a grenade to save his mates the dead would end up as heroes.
 

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,426
It's not really that interesting; it's pointless because none of us would ever be in a position to be able to make such a decision.

Would beheading a 10 year old boy with a blunt chainsaw be ok in order to cure cancer? There's an infinite number of different (but equally pointless) scenarios.
 

Mabs

J Peasemould Gruntfuttock
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
6,869
It might make me an arsehole but if I heard on the news that a million people were killed in say Iran in a pre-emptive nuclear attack, to stop Iran launching a Nuke that would of caused World War 3 and the end of the world I would be fine with that. I think hearing the same about anywhere other than the UK would pass me by if I am honest.

would you mind if we flew your family out there first ?

is it the number of people that people care about, or is it just a basic "i dont care how many as long as its not me/my family/friends" ?
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
It's not really that interesting; it's pointless because none of us would ever be in a position to be able to make such a decision.

Would beheading a 10 year old boy with a blunt chainsaw be ok in order to cure cancer? There's an infinite number of different (but equally pointless) scenarios.

It would, just to get that out of the way ;)

And it might be pointless regarding personal taste in discussion topics, but as it stands, it's not about us being in that situation, but of us being who we are if/when that situation happens.

You can be outraged, or not care, about large scale events you have no control over.
 

caLLous

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
18,426
And if it was you that had to look into that boy's terrified eyes while you lowered the chainsaw?

"That" situation is the same situation that we will never find ourselves in... so... pointless. :)
 

Ceixah

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
1,444
In the grand scheme of things - the death of everybody in the world bar enough people to ensure the human races survival would be "ok"


However - does anybody have the right to make that decision? - no.


if ofcourse it was decided by a natural disaster or whatever - the people that survived would simply have to just shut up and go on to ensure life continues.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
And if it was you that had to look into that boy's terrified eyes while you lowered the chainsaw?

"That" situation is the same situation that we will never find ourselves in... so... pointless. :)

What i was trying to say is that it's not about you pulling the trigger, in other words not a discussion about "would you kill someone to save another", but if you felt that mass eradication would be ok, in your current thought process, to save the race.

It's quite possible that this kind of a scenario will pop up, especially with world population rising etc and aid to hunger struck countries becoming less viable. That's when you will have an opinion and that hypothetical opinion is at play here ;)
 

soze

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 22, 2004
Messages
12,508
would you mind if we flew your family out there first ?

is it the number of people that people care about, or is it just a basic "i dont care how many as long as its not me/my family/friends" ?

Honestly for me it is a case of strangers do not effect me. Obviously if my Parents were on Holiday in Iran and got killed I would care. Like I said it might make me an arse but 7 7 had a bigger effect on me than 911 because people I know could have been caught in 7 7.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
Basic human trait, tribe first and all that. It's not being an arsehole, just being human.

All these save the world hippies though...gonna be the death of us :p
 

chipper

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 15, 2004
Messages
1,874
no deaths would be ok but if they were neccesary thats a different matter


if it was a case of i die or we all die id like to believe id pick the first option for the good of mankind etc


as for mass eradication nobody has the right to make that decision but one day someone might have to step up and make it anyway

tough subject to tackle tbh easy to talk about but if you were put in the position it would most likely send you mad
 

Helme

Resident Freddy
Joined
Mar 29, 2004
Messages
3,161
The only one I'd maybe stay behind is one specifically targetting lobbyists, investment bankers and politicians.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
The only one I'd maybe stay behind is one specifically targetting lobbyists, investment bankers and politicians.

English would probably approve of "lesser races"" too :p

Chipper, it indeed would be one of the hardest decisions made, but we have to remember that during WW2 the desicion was made twice. Ofcourse it wasn't done to ensure human survival(atleast doubt that was the motivation there), but still.

Hmm, perhaps the whole point could be delivered by asking "was bombing nagasaki ok?", but that would need to include the assumption that the world would've ended otherwise.
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
English would probably approve of "lesser races"" too :p

Chipper, it indeed would be one of the hardest decisions made, but we have to remember that during WW2 the desicion was made twice. Ofcourse it wasn't done to ensure human survival(atleast doubt that was the motivation there), but still.

Hmm, perhaps the whole point could be delivered by asking "was bombing nagasaki ok?", but that would need to include the assumption that the world would've ended otherwise.

Bit of a myth tbh, the decision to drop nukes wasn't made based on the number of deaths it might cause; the Americans had already killed more people in the Tokyo firestorm with conventional weapons than they managed at Hiroshima or Nagasaki. But in a way you're right, ever since we started dropping bombs on civilians, leaders have been making that "kill x to potentially save y" calculation.

As for "how many deaths to ensure survival of the race"? It would depend on the threat, but I can't imagine many circumstances where you could make an arbitrary calculation like that; if its something that threatens the whole human race, I doubt humans themselves would have any say in the matter.
 

Lamp

Gold Star Holder!!
Joined
Jan 16, 2005
Messages
22,950
Impossible question to answer

If there were 100 ppl, would you be happy killing 98, leaving just one healthy male & one healthy female?
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
18,397
Impossible question to answer

If there were 100 ppl, would you be happy killing 98, leaving just one healthy male & one healthy female?

No. Not enough genetic diversity to make it worthwhile.
 

Wazzerphuk

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
12,054
It's not really that interesting; it's pointless because none of us would ever be in a position to be able to make such a decision.

Would beheading a 10 year old boy with a blunt chainsaw be ok in order to cure cancer? There's an infinite number of different (but equally pointless) scenarios.

No because curing cancer would cause a huge spike in population numbers, spreading too few resources out even further.

In order to save the human race we need to halve the numbers and then ensure fertility rates don't overexceed the death rates.

So about 3-4 billion deaths will do to help sort out the planet and human health. I'd be more than ok with that, I'd be happy.
 

Uncle Sick

One of Freddy's beloved
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
792
Sometimes, when I open a news page, I half expect to see the headline "Amok Rampage in Finland", involving automatic weapons and plush seal left behind in a big puddle of blood.

How do you come up with these things, old.Toto? lol
 

megadave

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Apr 3, 2006
Messages
11,911
would you sacrifice yourself to save all of those on freddyshouse?
 

ilaya

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Jan 26, 2004
Messages
1,660
take out as many as is needed to eradicate religion and capitalism
 

SilverHood

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
2,281
Meh, if we had sacrifice 99% of the population to survive, would it even be worth living in afterwards? and what about time scales? If the world was going to end in a week, and I had the choice of being in the 1% that survived by living deep underground for the rest of my life, or part of the 99% that died, I'm sure I'd go for the 99% and then party like crazy for a week. Front row seats for doomsday please!
 

Zenith.UK

Part of the furniture
Joined
Dec 20, 2008
Messages
2,913
The original premise also assumes "normal" psychology.
If for some reason you are not "normal" (psychotic, sociopathic, schizophrenic, autistic or some condition that change your reasoning), you could well make different decisions and feel no regret or remorse. While many of the world's dictators are historically sociopaths, they're also usually sane.


I'm reminded of the "White Hole" episode of Red Dwarf.
Cat: Come on, man, you gotta sacrifice your life. I'm not asking you to do anything I wouldn't do.
Rimmer: You? You'd sacrifice your life for the good of the crew?
Cat: No! I'd sacrifice *your* life for the good of the crew.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
I'd sacrifice Toto to save 99.9% of mankind.

For real like.

Too late, my furry tentacles are already too widespread to be killed even with fire. They watch and push your politicians, your law, your grocers, your schools and your pee habbits...err...internets!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom