Riddle me this...

[Retardinator]

These are the people that keep the world in working order.

They aren't doing a very good job.
I'd choose them anyway because it's less lives and they can be replaced. World leaders are also only people, it's only their position that makes them any more significant (if it even does whatsoever).

 

[Rhade]

So you've got two groups of people, one in each hand. Put your two hands one over the other like you're holding a ball between them, then shake it up a whole ton and open them back up. Assume the groups are completely randomly mixed now.

Also assume that none of these 10,100 people can tell which class anyone else is, or have any bond or connection to any other person in the group. Take away their ability to communicate and tell them that the last 1000 people standing (an average from your two numbers) get to survive.

Work with what you've got from there.

 

[nicholaxxx]

100, it's be fun to see what'd happen to the world afterwards (granted, it probably wouldn't be much, it's removing 100 from a few thousand)

 

[Tsuillo]

Reminds me of the famous psychological test of the Trolly problems: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

A famous question, in a far different light.

I think circumstance aside, I would choose the lesser death count, if not only for the toll of blood, but for the frivolity of the situation. These high ranking officials would pass their wealth off to next of kin, new workers equally qualified would fill their positions, and the economy would naturally improve.

 

[Berethond]

That's what it said in the OP. That we're powerful beings.

Luckily I built a spare factory.

If we're already powerful beings, why haven't we destroyed all humans, or made our dream planets yet?
That seems like the logical thing to do. This thread is flawed.

Yeah, that's right!
I'm going to go build my new dystopia.

 

[Bored Tomatoe]

Kill the leaders. Because I don't think I would enjoy their company very much.

 

[Callate]

Do I get to choose the specific 100? Or for that matter, the specific 10,000? I don't usually like to make "judge, jury, and executioner" type decisions because most of the people who do turn out to be awful at them at best (no matter their good intentions or supposed qualifications), but heck, if I gotta, I might as well enjoy it...

 

[Blackdoom]

I would clap my hands together killing both groups.

 

[Pegghead]

If I absolutely HAVE to kill one of the groups it would have to be the one hundred leaders. I don't have a murderous prejudice for politics it's just that it boils down to killing 100 or killing ten thousand.

 

[ffxfriek]

I'll wait for the offers for their live before I kill anyone. The highest bidder wins.

you have the perfect answer

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Kill them all and kick another species in the evolutionary butt to see if they can do a better job.

 

[thom_cat_]

I'd kill em both. i am a powerful being. I WILL RULE OVER MY KINGDOM ALONE.

 

[Ben Jamin]

Can I just kill Michael Atkinson?

 

[Xeros]

I'd kill them all.

 

[internetzealot1]

Kill the average joes. They're not important.

 

[zauxz]

The leaders, duh.

Sounds like a chance to create perfect anarchy.

 

[ShawnRiles]

I'd kill the 100, turn the world into a slight communism state with my power through fear, then slowly turn the place into a democracy.