The Choice: Population of 7.5 Billion or 500 Million. What would you choose?

a reply to: ketsuko

But less attractive.

But that does highlight another flaw of this whole premise:

If I have to decide to push a button to randomly eliminate people down to 500 million, you are relying on me to basically not care if my own family and friends ... anyone at all I love in any way for any reason ... lives or dies because the odds they will be in that random pool along with me (assuming I am guaranteed to be there), is extremely slim.

Sorry, I love the idea of the planet more than those people? I think not.

a reply to: ketsuko
Whole concept is about the human race. Some people may feel that the species is more important
Than blood/social ties. This is what the OP is trying to challenge, your opinion. Not the fallacies in the concept.

Kill off 7 billion people? Really?

What if one of those seven billion grows up to be someone who could solve the issues facing us?

Wholesale murder as a solution...*sigh*.

a reply to: seagull

What if one of the 7 billion grows up and causes themass genocide of the human race. Swings and round abouts. Gotta destroy to rebuild, whether it be a prize stallion, grass roots in African plains or the human race, it's vital

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: seagull

What if one of the 7 billion grows up and causes themass genocide of the human race. Swings and round abouts. Gotta destroy to rebuild, whether it be a prize stallion, grass roots in African plains or the human race, it's vital

Given that the person standing there at the is already being tempted to become that person ... I think your argument there is flawed. Save the race from a genocidal maniac by being one ...

I think over population is a myth.

Texas has 15 billion acres of good land so every person on the planet could have 2 acres and all fit in the state of Texas.

Nobody understands, do they?

a reply to: ketsuko
I'm not saying I must kill them all just in case 1 person later kills them all.lmao. like saying save them all just in case someone saves them all (sounds familiar). Arguement is not flawed, was commenting on your comment on why do it cos someone might save them all. Was politely mocking you.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ketsuko
I'm not saying I must kill them all just in case 1 person later kills them all.lmao. like saying save them all just in case someone saves them all (sounds familiar). Arguement is not flawed, was commenting on your comment on why do it cos someone might save them all. Was politely mocking you.

Read again. Someone else made the comment about saving them all because one of them might grow up to solve some of the world's issues.

You need to keep your posters straight.

PS - There is no way to really mock someone and do it politely by definition, but thank you for letting know that you view me with contempt.

a reply to: ketsuko
My apologies.need to use computer when posting. But why would you say that comment if I was clearly reversing a person's reason for saving 7.5 billion.
Strange. Ah well

a reply to: ketsuko
By no means with contempt. Was mocking the comment, which I thought you said. My bad
On ATS you can always mock someone politely with valid reasoning or logic.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ketsuko
My apologies.need to use computer when posting. But why would you say that comment if I was clearly reversing a person's reason for saving 7.5 billion.
Strange. Ah well

Because that person was asking why you would genocide people randomly. What if one of them was the answer to the problem you were using genocide as the solution to?

Your response was to reply what if one of those people you save by not genociding grows up to perpetrate the genocide anyway.

My response to that is that your argument is flawed. You are talking about someone standing at the mass genocide button in the first place. How do you think the survivors feel when your defense is, "But I had to genocide all your loved ones in order to save you from a future genocide"? I doubt they'd be very sympathetic or gracious about it.

Choice has nothing to do with it.
We solved all our problems except population, pollution, gluttony, greed, vanity.
It's a zero sum game, population above supportable levels leads to the Malthusian paradox.
Which is; if you can't solve the problem rationally (or won't) then the four horsemen of the apocalypse will solve it for you.
The math is unavoidable. The sword of Damocles that is technology will not be the knife that parts that Gordian knot.
Intuition or destruction, God is asking... and will forever be asking those of us travelling the worldly plane.
a reply to: DaRAGE

a reply to: ketsuko

You do realise I was reversing the other guys comment right? Same flawed arguement. Not my own perspective as I would never think along those lines of reasoning. Don't kill everyone just in case 1 person can save them all/ don't save everyone just incase someone kills them all. Polar opposite,

Sorry for the confusion earlier.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: ketsuko

You do realise I was reversing the other guys comment right? Same flawed arguement. Not my own perspective as I would never think along those lines of reasoning

Yeah, I do get that.

But even though both statements are based on mere assumptions - there might be either the savior or the demon in the flock - the first statement at least supposed you are avoiding a highly negative action - genocide - to possibly discover the solution to the problems that create the potential necessity for the negative action.

In your statement, you posit that the negative action - genocide - might be a blessing because there might another genocidal maniac out there. So in the end, nothing changes. Everyone dies no matter what.

At least the first statement has a chance of change.

a reply to: ketsuko
You do realise that the perspective I proposed to counter the statement saves 500 mil people. Stops the genocide of the entire race. You keep missing that and unfortunately invalidates your response. I think it's the way we are using genocide in 2 different contexts ( 1 genocide kills everyone, 1
Genocide saves 500 mil) I think this is where the confusion lies between us. But everything you say is correct if it didn't involve 500 mil.

We have gone well off track here based on a situation within a concept. What if this happens what if you kill yourself or family. It's irrelevant to the concept. Save the human species or hope we save ourselves

Just to say I didn't mean that "invalidates your response" to be demeaning in anyway shape or form, just that the well articulated arguement is missing a key premise..

a reply to: rossacus

You are operating from the position that a genocide is acceptable or necessary to save 500 million.

I am operating from the other side.

Therein lies the differences in the arguments. Also known as your glass being half empty where mine is generally half full.

I would say both stances have a chance for change. Mine more immediate and resolves many of the issues that's caused this button pushing to begin with. I would say that's half full, a positive outcome for the remaining population. But you are correct in that I'm pessamistic that the human race will solve these problems before the point of no return. I can't rely on faith (stemming from hatred of religion obviously, religion being one of the main causes for the button push).

Thanks for the debate and for not stooping to levels many on ATS do when their perspective is challenged or not agreed upon, using reason. Sorry for the confusion earlier as this debate could have been far more applicable to the OP if it weren't for my mistake. Good day sir, no doubt see you in another thread.

a reply to: rossacus

Please explain to me how it's a good thing to commit mass murder to save us all from the possibility of mass murder?

I'll freely admit to being a little confused by that...