Poll: You must choose

[Dr. Danger]

I've never been one to gamble so I'd choose the first option.

 

[Arkynomicon]

Gonna go with first option because there is still a chance everyone will get screwed over.

 

[gabe12301]

DAAAYUMMM Escapist community! You scary! I'm pretty sure keeping your pants up would be a better way of managing the population.And why do some of you want everyone to die? WTF?!

 

[Troublesome Lagomorph]

Only a 7% chance of failing?
#2, then.

 

[Arkynomicon]

DAAAYUMMM Escapist community! You scary! I'm pretty sure keeping your pants up would be a better way of managing the population.And why do some of you want everyone to die? WTF?!

I'm lazy like that.

 

[IDTheftVictim]

cut it in half and hope the random person killer doesn't choose me.

Why do I have to make this choice anyway, it sounds like there is a good story there.

 

[Bob Hoss]

... do i get to choose who lives and who dies?

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

do i get to..choose which half i kill?

that option is tempting then..

nah i kid, but really that 7% sucks ass...but then again i'd probably go with option 2 to keep the world spinning...

 

[Phlakes]

Well, am I included in those? If I can be part of the half from option 1, then I'll definitely go with 2.

50% chance of dying or 7% chance of dying.

If I'm immune, I'd probably still go with 2. Even if everyone else is killed, I'd have dogs.

Unless I'm only immune to dying in option 1, then I'd go with that.

 

[Flailing Escapist]

You've.... never taken a stats class have you?
If the odds were 25% I'd probably consider it.
If it was a 50/50 chance we'd be getting into sufficient gambling.
And if someone wanted to be real ballsy (a dick) it'd be 7%/93%

That aside your best chance that nobody dies (by far) would be to pick the latter option.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

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.

that's if your not smart with your choices, if you take out areas by the landmass area/annual finances/type of job/effect on global market/food production/etc..break it up into sub categories, then it really would solve a lot of problems (now i'm not agreeing with it, my good side would get the best of me and say option 2)

dare i say..kotick?

i'm sure many many people here would agree that'd be one not missed by anyone but the stockholders.

 

[Wushu Panda]

Who says misanthropy is dead?

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

They both live strong within me my friend.

 

[Aprilgold]

1, solve every single problem with the world, over population, hunger, cancer [to a extent] and aids [to an extent] sure half of them would be dead, but the problems to be fixed would be around, also, JAILS WOULD NOT BE OVER USED ANYMORE! Corrupt politicians would be gone, bastards would be gone, people who ruled nations as war mongering states would be gone, sure the places would be in ruins, but it would be largely better for everyone. It'd be nice if I could choose after the fact that people learned neccessary jobs / talents to keep the world as we know it OK, also, if they moved to certain areas to live afterwards, just so its not all scrambled. But again, the downsides are outweighed by the good sides, which is a drop of many things that COULD spread and kill everyone, those numbers would SIGNIFICANTLY drop.

......

But then if that extra bit didn't exist, then definitively 2, living with those problems is way less important then living daily life

 

[Nouw]

Risk it because if I chose 1, there would be tremendous global suffering.

 

[YouEatLard]

Pretty easy for me. Would you ever play Russian roulette? Would you ever stand up on a motorcycle at 150 mph while naked if you had the chance to make a million dollars? Would you do 180 mph on a motorcycle wearing no protective gear? Would you kill a few to make sure thousands would live?

There are options that we don't take because the risk, even if insignificant in chance, is too horrific to take.

Option 1 wins in my book.

1,......

Oh, and this answer is win.

 

[Alade]

The only thing I do wonder is if I would die in the worst case scenario. Whatever the answer to that is, I pick option A.

 

[loc978]

I'd toss the dice and hope for the nebulous 90.07% option. I do love a good surprise.

 

[Fanfic_warper]

confused....what is the context of the situation?

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Who says misanthropy is dead?

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

They both live strong within me my friend.

You're chivalrous and misanthropic? Hm, a commercial comes to mind:

n [/youtube]