[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.65 MB, 1280x1000, ngc2841c_hst_lg.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2569457 No.2569457 [Reply] [Original]

If you had the power to solve all social and environmental problems on the planet but it meant culling 90% of the human population, would you do it?

If so, what do you think you know that makes your decision righteous? Who would you slay?

What makes your decision righteous in logic or reason? Who would you slay? How would you pull it off?

Inevitably, the racist and religious amongst us fools will chime in with some faggot shit, but I seek the answers of empiricists.

>> No.2569473

/sci/ - Politics and Philosophy

>> No.2569471

OP fails to edit final draft of post.

>> No.2569480

>>2569473

Why is science not ALL knowledge to you, only what you prefer to learn?

>> No.2569486

>>2569480

/sci/ - Semantics Class

>> No.2569492

>mfw OP has the new Hubble pic of the low-star-birth-rate galaxy

*up-to-date-brofist*

>> No.2569511

Depends on what exactly solving those problems entails, and whether they'll stay solved. In the ideal situation, I would say yes, because eternal peace is most definitely worth six billion lives. Essentially, it would be like buying the end of war with the single greatest war of all. But it's even better, because I can make it humane.

Planetwide lottery. Backed by fear, of some made-up (or real, I don't care) extraplanetary threat, or a gigantic environmental catastrophe. Hell, even an epidemic. Those who win survive, those who lose are killed in the most painless way possible. I would not be exempt.

>> No.2569517

yeah sure 90% of the "human" race is simply degenerate subhumans anyway so why not

>> No.2569536

Nah, those remaining would only create more problems and different environmental problems. I think the agent in the matrix put it best when he said that far from seeking a balance with our environment, we consume until there is nothing left -i.e. mankind is a virus, or something...

>> No.2569552

>>2569511

My worry with lotteries is, when it comes to peoples' lives, you can't make them believe in the fairness of the system. There inevitably will be powerful degenerate shitheads who rig it in their favor, handing over to the worst among us the future of mankind.

>> No.2569558

>>2569536
Better than the Machines, which did nothing at all, despite being superior in basically every way.

>> No.2569576

>>2569552
Well, the OP suggests that all social and environmental problems will be solved regardless of what I do. The 90% is just payment for that.

So it doesn't matter.

>> No.2569691
File: 604 KB, 613x793, HumanEmpire.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2569691

>solve all social and environmental problems

No, I think that would weaken mankind.

I want the biosphere to slowly die and be replaced by human artifice.

And I want aggressive conflict to continue so that our vicious imperialistic attitude is preserved in case of future conflict with intelligent life of non-human origin. In fact I would like us to preventively declare war on all other life in the universe. The stars are the providence of Mankind alone.

Even if someone could magically solve these "problems" with no loss of human life, I would probably murder them in their sleep before they enacted such a foolish and short sighted plan.

> I think the agent in the matrix put it best when he said that far from seeking a balance with our environment, we consume until there is nothing left -i.e. mankind is a virus, or something...

Species that can continuously spread and consume will out-compete those that cannot or will not. Whenever I hear an nonhuman complain about humanity being like plague, I cannot help but think that it is always the way of the weak to deride the strong for their strength.

>> No.2569774

The First is to kill off all of the people who won't or can't contribute to society:

Kill everybody who has been declared insane.
Kill everybody who are in coma, and have been so for a substantial amount of time.
Kill everybody who are mentally retarded.
Kill everybody who have a jail sentence for a serious crime.
Kill everybody who are mortally obese
Kill everybody who are addicted to a "hard" drug.
Kill the homeless.

Now to rid the world of people that we all want to get rid of:

Kill everybody who have a blind faith.
Kill everybody who cannot do basic reasoning.

The next step is to make sure that people will support the new world government:

Kill the antiestablis- ahh screw it, you know who I'm talking about.
Kill the anarchists.
Kill everybody who can't agree on having direct democracy.

Now to begin sorting by intelligence:

Subject all the people to various tests, such as IQ tests, tests of logic and reasoning, tests of debating, spelling, grammatics, math, physics etc. etc. but also tests of physical strength, health andvigor, stamina etc.

Kill everybody who would have been considered "below the average".

The last would be to take whoever remains and draw a lottery.

And that was my plan for building utopia.

>> No.2569778

>>2569457
Insufficiently clear to give an answer. It depends greatly on "how" the human population would be so diminished.

>> No.2569781

>>2569774
let's base utopia on massive genocide!

>> No.2569800

>>2569781
>genocide
>never mentioned ethnicity

Nigger you best be jokin

>> No.2569811

>>2569800
oh I'm sorry, I misused the term genocide

carry on with your plan of exterminating billions of innocents in order to create the "perfect" world

>> No.2569829

>>2569774
I really hope you are first to go on this list

>> No.2569832

>>2569774

Here

>>2569800

Is not me.

The task at hand was to choose how to kill 90% of human population, I've done so according to what I thought was fair, that is, by sorting from Intelligence, skill and health.

>> No.2569841

>>2569774
>Kill everybody who are addicted to a "hard" drug.

Why not your caffeine addiction?

Nice list arbitrarily designed to exclude yourself.

Except that you don't seem to know how averages work and end up killing yourself anyway.

>> No.2569887

>>2569841

I am human am I not?

If my list was used, I would go at step 1 or 4.
If "hard drugs" are defined as drugs that kill people, that means alcohol and nicotine too.
I'm a heavy smoker. Oh well.

That, and that I won't consider myself above this magical "average" that I am apparently missing the point of.

>> No.2569927
File: 125 KB, 574x383, gg3.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2569927

>>2569774
Why does this sound sooooo familiar?

>> No.2570004

>>2569774
The only reason people like me are anarchists is because the system we are governed by is not yet perfect

>> No.2570149

best way to kill is indiscriminately
else they evolve to the test, not fitness
see genetic algorithm

inb4 march 15 2011

>> No.2570154

>If you had the power to solve all social

You need to define this more clearly. If you're talking about discrimination & prejudice, that's going to be hard to get rid of without some pretty impressive rewiring of how we interact with others. Reducing risk-taking, aggressiveness, future-discounting, emotion-based reasoning etc are other issues that would not be solved BY culling 90% of the human population.

>environmental

We can do this now or at 10% of population, it's not a big issue either way.


>If so, what do you think you know that makes your decision righteous?

If faced with the alternative of a total destruction of the world and a (totally guessed) hundreds of trillions of sentient individuals unable to experience life vs several billion, you could say it's righteous. Those people are purely hypothetical, though.

>How would you pull it off?

I was assuming I'd have the help of functional magik and merely have to choose. If you were talking about me being the ruler of a powerful (but not all-powerful) country (e.g., the US) and having to enact the deaths of ~6.03 billion people, this would be pretty difficult. Probably nuclear weapons, but even that is not guaranteed - especially if I'm doing this to SAVE the environment & people.

>> No.2570170

>>2569517
That's pretty high... ever seen a bell curve. What exactly are your parameters?

>> No.2570195

>/sci/ - Religion & Philosophy

>> No.2570203

What the fuck is a triptrash like you doing on this board? Go back to your pretentious and pseudo-intellectual rathole.

>> No.2570208

>>2570154 cont

>Who would you slay?

I had to rewrite this post because apparently part of it "wasn't allowed to be posted" - anyone know what this means?

94.87% of the population who score below 94.87% in a test of rationality/reasoning, intelligence, and physical health (incl. genetic propensity to disease) would be killed.

Those individuals who score above 94.87% against population average would survive. 5.13% of total population.

Of those individuals who failed to achieve higher than 94.87%, 5.13% would be given a reprieve (4.87% of total population). Variety is the spice of life (also genetic diversity and creativity and many, many other things aren't selected for by the test administered).

If all I had were conventional and nuclear weapons, I'm not sure. Perhaps over 20-30 years pursue a NWO-esque agenda of world-wide sterility through marketing a must-have drug (hat-tip to BlyssPlus) while identifying most productive/rational/intelligent 10%. After a generation has failed to procreate, seclude the identified 10% (note: this would be double the population of the US at current world pop levels, so kind of hard to do - maybe localised terraforming of Australia/subterranean arrangements in Antarctica?) and wait for the (old) world to end.

>> No.2570225

>>2570004
Maybe retarded "anarchists" like you who think that by making some minor changes to the government and calling it by a euphamism will change it's nature.

>> No.2570233

race targetable biowepons
for the WIN

>> No.2570237

I would kill myself to save the other 90% population.
I become the new Jesus.
A religion is created based on me.
Everything goes back to normal.
Died for nothing.

>> No.2570256

Annihilating 90% of the human population would automatically solve all social and environmental problems.

So, what you're really asking is:

IF U HAD DA POWR 2 KILL 90% OF TEH PPLS WUD U US IT????

>> No.2570282

kill everyone who can't logic, has blind faith, can't do math, and gets violent easily, after that if there is anyone leftover, I would kill people with the lowest intelligence until 10% of the population remained. I would do so by killing the bottom 80% of the population first(people in different countries, U.S. Fag btw), I would be essentially taking over the world to do this with armies and such. Then with the absolute power I will have gained from doing this, I will start using eugenics on people in my own country at first. But I would start working my way up into mass killings until only 10% of the world remained.

>> No.2570300

>>2570256
Just make sure it is the correct 90%...
>my god, you had Bob killed, he had the highest IQ score of them all, and my god what a penis

>> No.2570307
File: 26 KB, 400x400, 091128-derp.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2570307

This thread is fucking stupid. If I had this kind of power, I would kill first OP and all the people who replied to OP seriously.

>> No.2570318
File: 45 KB, 195x179, 1272570343460.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2570318

No. I would help them all.

>> No.2571991

farting

>> No.2571998

NWO

>> No.2572003

I would do what >>2569774 said and kill of those who cant contribute. I would then take a poll, asking questions not on your belief, but on your ability to work with different beliefs, and ship it to everyone. I would then kill off the lowest 90% of every country. Tada