Poll: You must choose

[viranimus]

You would have had me if you had said there was a 93% chance of killing 93% of the population.

Half isnt really enough, but... meh a bird in the hand, right?

In all fairness Wouldnt want to kill everybody. People can serve their purposes. Too many of them is just a waste.

 

[Princess Rose]

So long as I can determine which half, number 1.

The world needs some population reduction anyway.

 

[Tiger Sora]

I'd only kill half but I'd need to form a comity to decide whom of celebrity and political figures live. The list will be quite short.

 

[Zack1501]

There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.

What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html


http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html

We may not have enough people to destroy the world but the would would be a better place with less people.

 

[joshuaayt]

Risk it.

Option 1: Kill half of human race
Outcome: Half of human race dies, and I get to live with the knowledge that I made a decision, knowing what would happen.

Option 2: Take the risk
Outcome 1: No one dies, all is well.
Outcome 2 Everyone dies, I don't have to deal with anything, because I, too, am dead.

 

[Turigamot]

There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.

What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html


http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html

We may not have enough people to destroy the world but the would would be a better place with less people.

Or more boring. More people means more ideas, as I see it.

Also, this fucking captcha...

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Easiest question in a long time for me.

Not only is the 2nd option statistically better as far as lives lost, but it makes more sense.

If half of humanity dies, everyone loses people they love, society collapses from the population shift, lots of pain and suffering. If everyone dies, no one would be around to care. Earth would just become a planet full of animals and random crap from our society. No harm, no foul there.

 

[Lazarus Long]

Who says misanthropy is dead?

Oh, wait. That's chivalry, isn't it?

 

[Owen Robertson]

Well I kind of want to kill half of the human race anyway...

So I have to go with option 1.

Ditto. Planets overpopulated. Besides why risk the 7%?
Although, I am a gambling man, and I like those odds! Screw it. 2 it is!

 

[ProfessorEkim]

If half of humanity were the ignorant cocks that are making life just a little harder to live, I'd choose the first option. Even if that wasn't the case maybe by killing half of humanity I could scare the living shits out of the ignorant cocks and make them shape up.

Yeah, I think I'll go with the first one.

 

[Araxiel_1911]

Some context would be nice.
Also, where's the third option:
"Kill everyone...period"

I think I'd start with people that make these stupid threads

 

[Sprinal]

Number one as it allows for the worst case. Also if the second one went south the whole population is gone. Even if it were a 0.05% I would not take it. As it would be unavoidable if that was what was roled.

 

[zehydra]

You never have to choose.

I'm gonna just walk away.

 

[Zack1501]

There's really no such thing as a global population problem. Scientists have explained this already.

What nonsense is this? And who are these crackpot scientists?

http://www.realclearscience.com/articles/2011/07/20/the_world_is_not_overpopulated_106247.html


http://www.agricultureinformation.com/forums/shout-box/19818-overpopulation-myth.html

We may not have enough people to destroy the world but the would would be a better place with less people.

Or more boring. More people means more ideas, as I see it.

Also, this fucking captcha...

That is understandable logic but if we have less people we can have better living conditions and less starving people. people who had good ideas but were in conditions to bad to be able to share them with the world would now be able to. I think to an extent you are right 2 people are not as smart as 4. in the billions i don't think it matters.

and yes this captcha sucks. it put a 3 above the word i was typing. HOW DO I DO THAT!

 

[Xero Scythe]

Can I choose to reduce the human population by one magnitude instead of only half? ... Just kidding!
Either way, you can see that I'd choose option one. If I could help it, I'd like to pick some people to spare and some to ensure die, but I doubt that's an option.

I dunno, wouldn't that be taking on the role of God? Why do you say who gets to pick who dies? I'm sorry, but I just don't like it when people want to take on the role of life v death (Yes, I absolutely HATED the first serious choice in fable.)

EDIT: Oh, son of a *****. I forgot to post. Anyway, I choose option two. If a human is offering me this choice, then I reckon I can bluff him down as he would die too. Even if God offers this choice or something, better to risk it all and win everything than risk losing a loved one and having to live with the knowledge I had a chance to save them.

 

[Klarinette]

I do want to know what's in it for me, blah blah moral debate, blah blah humanity and hope, etc. Tough decision. I'll go with option 2, I suppose.

 

[Iconsting]

Condemn half the world to death or give the whole world an incredibly good chance to live?

Option B seems like the most logical choice. After all, if everyone in the world dies, I won't live to regret my choice.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

The first one. We are vastly overpopulated and, while I have no right to choose who lives or dies, we could stand to lose at least some people until we figure out how to sustain these kinds of numbers.

I'd risk it, although the first option would seriously help with the global population problem.

Kill half. As much as I dislike the idea of killing rougly 3.5 billion people, overpopulation is a very large problem.

Wow, it seems a lot of people don't understand the scope and consequences of killing half the population. Our society (and all societies really) depends on a vast network of people doing very specific jobs. If half the population died, those jobs wouldn't be performed.

Imagine doctors, water treatment workers, farmers, engineers, politicians, trash collectors and CEOs dropping like flies. Countless industries and institutions would struggle or cease to function due to losing half its members, and the standard of living would plummet. The loss of loved ones coupled with the terrible living conditions could do some very bad things to the public mentality. Potentially, violence and chaos would engulf the world. Hooray.

If you really want the control the world population, the trick is to STOP HAVING SO MANY BABIES. The population bubble is a problem that won't be fully solved in this, or even next generation, and if the problem is approached carelessly, we could face some serious problems.

 

[Thistlehart]

Option 1. I'll take half the world's population right off the bat rather than the measly 7% chance of getting everyone. At least half is a good start.