Poll: You must choose

[purehatred89]

Option one please, I'm not a gambling misanthropist. 3 billion guaranteed dead is better than 7% chance of all.

 

[Broady Brio]

2nd option.

I'd be dead if it went wrong, so oh well.

 

[Doclector]

Wait, 2.93% chance of saving everyone, 7% chance of killing everyone? What happens in the other 90.07% of possibilities? Humanity becomes the living dead?

I'd kill half. I don't like those odds. have some people in mind if I can choose...

 

[DSK-]

Kill half. At least that way you know 100% what the outcome will be. I'd rather not risk it for a biscuit.

 

[thtool]

Tough question. I would decide it on the basis of the end result of the all life. I see the ultimate goal of life as learning as much as possible about the universe.

If we chose the second one, we might wipe out all human life. You can't ignore that, because 7% is huge. There will be no more super-powerful animal species that has the full monopoly over everything else. Maybe another species will evolve over millions of years to form another creature on the same intellectual level as humans. But that's not a certain outcome, maybe life will never again achieve high intelligence. But life on earth may be better off, without the greedy destructive bastards who burn forests and wreck everything.

The first option means humans will definitely remain the greatest species. We will also lose a whole lot of polluters, better for earth. It may also wreck the economy and change society in drastic ways...

I'm going to go for option 1. Can't take the risk that all human life be erased.

 

[NightlyNews]

-snip-

I said race not humans because it would be dumb to do with literally any species. If you don't care about people or the world (removing an incredibly dominant species from the world would change it - who's storing and maintaining nuclear weaponry and all domesticated animals would die) what do you care about?

I think being able to read is kind of important, I care about that. And not making petty distinctions like between 'race' and 'humans'. Note: I didn't say I didn't care about people. I said I don't value the species as a whole over individuals. That's a pretty obvious difference so it's rather disingenuous to pretend I said I don't care about people or the world. And also, changing the world != bad. I'd say that from the point of view of most surviving creatures it doesn't make much of a difference.

Are you just selfish and want a higher chance of living 7% over 50% or do you not understand a universe without humans would be more boring.

Are you really so bad at reading that the word individuals doesn't parse?

And more boring? Yeah, way to make a case for humanity. "It would be boring without us". And a terribly thought out argument too since for all you know no one else knows about us. Lastly, it says you're the selfish one.

I understood the first part. I don't believe it and personally think your a pseudo intellectual because you use flowy prose to talk on the internet.

The second point honestly didn't make sense. What didn't I understand about individuals. What are you placing value on yourself or your friends and family. Individuals is kinda a shit word, which is why everyone out of eighth grade English class stops using it. It's like using one instead of you, it doesn't make you smarter it just makes your writing colder and incomprehensible.

 

[Sgt. Dante]

We are on the brink of overpopulation so 1 is the only sensible choice. 2 is never worth the risk as even if it were a 1% chance of killing everyone then it's quite frankly not worth completely unrecoverable.