First, apologies if this belongs in Religion and Politics, I was undecided.
My friend and I were having a debate today, about which society we would rather live in. The two sides are listed below.
Option 1
This was my friend's side. He argued that, in order to combat overpopulation and dwindling resources, a drastic reorganization of human society was needed. He said that all humans should be judged on their overall worth to society, based on strength, intelligence, etc. and that those who fell in the bottom 10-25% should be killed. In addition, the top 5% would form a collective governing body, ruling basically as a dictatorship. Those left in the middle class, not so low as to be killed but not in the ruling order, would operate on a mostly communist organization. Everyone must work to benefit everyone. He also said that ingenuity and creativity would be rewarded. However, if an inventor became rich off an invention and then failed to contribute more, they would have their riches seized, and under threat of death be forced to continue to work. He said that this method was necessary to ensure the continued survival of the human race, as if we didn't do something to get rid of the useless, soon government would dissolve as the world fell into anarchy because of a large population fighting over a small amount of resources. He also said that this method should be implanted soon, because it may be too late otherwise.
Option 2
I said I would rather die than live in such a society. I said that it was no one's place to judge what made one person's life worth more than another's, and that his system was just inhuman. My view is that if it's going to come to anarchy, so be it. I would rather have anarchy than dictatorship. I also said that I was entitled to my own riches, whether or not I continued to innovate. A person deserves to have their work rewarded without fear of having that reward taken away. I also pointed out that this would stifle innovation, as people would feel forced to continue to produce more so they don't lose everything.
tl;dr
In summary, he argues for harsh, strict government control to ensure survival, while I argue for looser control and freedom, even in the face of anarchy, pain, and death.
Discussion value
How about you? Which side would you go with? Would you rather live in a society where the government decides who is worthless, and those people are killed? Or would you rather live in anarchy, but still have your freedoms?
My friend and I were having a debate today, about which society we would rather live in. The two sides are listed below.
Option 1
This was my friend's side. He argued that, in order to combat overpopulation and dwindling resources, a drastic reorganization of human society was needed. He said that all humans should be judged on their overall worth to society, based on strength, intelligence, etc. and that those who fell in the bottom 10-25% should be killed. In addition, the top 5% would form a collective governing body, ruling basically as a dictatorship. Those left in the middle class, not so low as to be killed but not in the ruling order, would operate on a mostly communist organization. Everyone must work to benefit everyone. He also said that ingenuity and creativity would be rewarded. However, if an inventor became rich off an invention and then failed to contribute more, they would have their riches seized, and under threat of death be forced to continue to work. He said that this method was necessary to ensure the continued survival of the human race, as if we didn't do something to get rid of the useless, soon government would dissolve as the world fell into anarchy because of a large population fighting over a small amount of resources. He also said that this method should be implanted soon, because it may be too late otherwise.
Option 2
I said I would rather die than live in such a society. I said that it was no one's place to judge what made one person's life worth more than another's, and that his system was just inhuman. My view is that if it's going to come to anarchy, so be it. I would rather have anarchy than dictatorship. I also said that I was entitled to my own riches, whether or not I continued to innovate. A person deserves to have their work rewarded without fear of having that reward taken away. I also pointed out that this would stifle innovation, as people would feel forced to continue to produce more so they don't lose everything.
tl;dr
In summary, he argues for harsh, strict government control to ensure survival, while I argue for looser control and freedom, even in the face of anarchy, pain, and death.
Discussion value
How about you? Which side would you go with? Would you rather live in a society where the government decides who is worthless, and those people are killed? Or would you rather live in anarchy, but still have your freedoms?
