I'd sacrifice people who were already wanting to die with decent reason; i.e. people with terminal illnesses who were like "okay, it's about that time, I don't want to live my life in a hospital tanked on pain meds, so I should be moving on now." These people exist, and in exchange for giving them what they already want, I could bring people back.
I agree with CF in that seriously, you guys can't want to kill the casts of your most hated shows or something. They're human beings, really now, and they don't have want/reason to die.
As for who I'd revive? First off, Jesus, because seriously, I want some questions answered. Second...it gets more difficult. Probably a pack of recent very renowned scientists. Also, could I throw someone into the machine just to revive them without physical disabilities? Like, could I chuck Stephen Hawking in there and bring him back just to give the guy a better life?
I have a problem with the description of healthy? Are we talking no terminal illnesses or just diseases. You'd be hard pressed (and I bet it would be impossible) to find someone who is perfectly healthy. Also the definition of people is very vague, as it varies from country to country. So until the OP clarifies I'm running with standard legal definitions. What I would do is find some ridiculously religious country with a very lax ethics board that mainly disallows stuff like abortion, and preferably has nothing to lose by taking on riskier endeavors (maybe something like Cuba). Then I would on the bench fuse together 5 human eggs and 5 human sperm essentially making a person (if a person is considered a person at conception - hence why the very religious country was necessary). Then I'd throw my plates into the machine and start spitting out scientist after scientist.
You could throw in 5 wheelchair bound mentally handicapped people, but they have to be full grown. The machine works on matter conversion, so 5 babies wouldn't work.
That way you can't kill annoying kids in this question. Kids still have a chance to develop into a not-shitty, not-annoying members of society.
Could I get away with using five perfectly healthy inmates on death row? Oh, I see someone already went with that [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.384239-You-have-a-resurrection-machine#15234319].
Well considering the ethical dilemma implicit in this question, a cop-out answer like that is cheating a bit anyway. So I suppose I'd have to come up with an actual five man answer. Let's see...
I see everyone's trying the whole "make the world a better place" thing, but why in all that is cheese-filled pizza crust are you going for people like corporate executives? Or overrated hollywood stars? That's stupid. That's petty targeting based on nothing more than personal annoyances and vendettas.
I don't see people considering that the higher-ups of Electronic Arts might just be nice people even if they don't see eye-to-eye with us and have some mis-conceptions about things. That they aren't soulless; they're just doing their jobs.
But nope. Evidently they deserve to die for their marketing practices. Alright. I can roll with that. Because eventually that's what it all comes down to, isn't it? You're choosing which people get selectively eliminated for what you either perceive to be for humanity's benefit, or simply for personal reasons. To that end, I'm going to select these people because I want to:
> Holmes, the nutjob most likely behind the Aurora Massacre. It's not often I get emotionally struck by murders I hear about, but for whatever reason this one genuinely got to me. If I had the option to personally throw this guy into a time-flux to resurrect a dead person with no other consequences, I'd do it. And not because he's a murderer, but because he makes me feel sad.
> Ingrid Newkirk, founder and president of People for Ethical Treatment of Animals. Her heart's probably in the right place, but I disagree with her, her goals, and her organization. Animals are animals, ma'am. If you want all animals to be treated the same as your fellow man, I'm going to treat you like an animal. For little reason other than the heck of it. Into the machine with you.
> Barack Obama. What happens when you sacrifice the President of the United States to a time-flux with presumably no trace of his 'demise'? How will Secret Service react? How (or with what) will the news networks of America cover that story? Will Joe Biden be a better or worse president for the next six months? You have to admit, Social Sciences have never been this fun.
> Carl Sagan. Whoa man, we're pushing it now. But seriously, if we get a time-defying machine, I want to throw a renowned scientist into it. Because I think it would be funny.
...And yeah, that's all it boils down to.
Sorry Sagan. You're leaving humanity for my amusement.
> Me. I could abuse this machine to no end; sacrificing people by the boatloads to get better parking or not have to wait in line. But in the end, I have to ask myself: would I subject others to this unknown fate if I wasn't willing to do so myself?
The answer is no.
For science, ladies and gentlemen. But don't feel obligated to remember me. And at the very least, I get to talk to these people while in purgatory (or whatever) and find out with the ultimate hindsight whose life views and philosophies are the best (except for Holmes, he may not have any). That would be awesome.
...And, yeah. I have my five. There's just one matter of business left. Who do I actually revive? Someone flip a coin. Heads: Genghis Khan.
Tails: Nikola Tesla. Either way, there are so many things that we could set the record straight on.
I only have two specific people in mind I'd want to sacrifice. I don't want to drop names, so let's just call them "Boston" and "My paternal grandmother, that passive-agressive psycho *****." Once I've got them, I'd just choose a random sampling of death row inmates, reality stars, and war criminals until I had enough people to resurrect:
1. Douglas Adams, perhaps the greatest author of all time. He could finally finish Salmon of Doubt and bitchslap Eoin Colfier for that travesty he wrote.
2. Richard Feynman, who was just an all-around great guy.
3. Jesus Christ, so I can take him to a WBC rally and watch him smite the hell out of Fred Phelps.
I wouldn't outright sacrifice anyone but I would give people a proper suicide booth [I.E the machine] and then people who wanted to be 20 again would have to pay me. Pretty much making it the only ever-lasting-youth machine on the planet and I will be swimming in cash.
EDIT: Yes of course the people going to their death would eventually be put up into the machine and resserected at the very end of it if I feel they ended their life to soon.
I was going to weigh in a bit, but this has made me want to sacrifice my head to my desk instead.
rEvolution said:
Your right; IQ does not affect Intelligence. It just attempts to MEASURE IT.
"The ratio of tested mental age to chronological age, usually expressed as a quotient multiplied by 100."
But now IQ is now generally assessed on the basis of the statistical distribution of scores.
BTW: IQ = Intelligence Quotient
http://www.answers.com/topic/intelligence-quotient
Every dictionary definition disagrees with you.
Even with the Flynn effect; there's plenty of people from 50 years ago that are smarter than plenty of people now and because we know about the potential Flynn effect it can be compensated for, to ensure the average individual IQ increases.
It's kind of funny that you're preaching about burning the unenlightened masses when you can't even use the word "your" or a semicolon properly on a consistent basis. You'd have a good chance of being a victim of your own selection process with things like that, which probably makes it a less attractive option for you there.
I would just grab the death row people to power the machine, that part I am not concerned with.
The person I would bring back would be Gunpei Yokoi. While the 3DS's success is debatable it is no doubt leagues more successful than the Virtual Boy. I would like him to see a 3D portable gaming system work. Plus he could return to his franchises Metroid and Fire Emblem.
It's said that when someone lacks any real arguments they simply attempt to deconstruct the grammar of a statement as opposed to presenting anything of value.
Well done; I misspelled "you're"
My use of semi-colons though. Fairly acceptable grammar. But im not writing legal documents; this is an informal forum and I could care less about my grammar. DWI
So; anything to contribute? Or is Grammar Nazi your only track?
But here's something else to round it out; My selection process is based on IQ.
Correct use of semi-colons and spellings of "you're" are not part of that test.
Therefore any imagined deficiencies in this areas would not affect my IQ; ergo it would not affect my chance of the grinder. Even if it did contain those tests; they would represent a fraction of the cumulative IQ score and as such be fairly inconsequential.
Being so clearly enlightened I thought that would be obvious to you? Or did you not understand the selection process I outlined? Because thats what your response strongly suggests.
My point, which you obviously missed, was that IQ tests are purely academic; it took no more than your advocacy of the process to immediately show that you're a potential victim of it. Your grammar itself had nothing to do with it, and if you weren't implying that people who can't pass a test according your standards should die, I wouldn't have said a word about it.
You did, though, so you're being a prick and have no grasp of irony. Even moreso because you called someone "kid" without context, as much of a faux pas in intelligent conversation making on the internet as anything else, except unlike me, you had zero basis other than that you wanted to show how smugly self-satisfied with yourself you are.
So no, I think we're done here. If there was even one person who does badly on an IQ test that's a half decent human being for every smartass **** who did well, the world would be a better place, and I'm quite pleased that you have no say in the matter whatsoever.
(Fuck this is going to get personal.) I would bring back my best friend, who died not long after his 17th birthday, three years ago next Friday.
Question: Can I sacrifice my alive-but-crippled close friend, who had his accident right before 18 (he's now 21), along with four other people, in order to bring him back to life but in good health? I would absolutely sacrifice four assholes to bring him to full health, morality be damned.
After those two? Who I'd bring back? Shit, I don't know. Thomas Jefferson, for starters, and Nikola Tesla. I'd bring back Edison just to shove a lightbulb up his ass and shove him back in the machine. Then I'd bring back intellectuals and leaders that didn't display malice but instead actually wanted to further our species.
As for who I'd sacrifice?
I'd sacrifice asshole execs, EVERY multi-millionaire that doesn't donate a significant portion of their money towards helping the poor, a good portion of the Middle East, a good portion of Africa, all religious extremists of any sort...actually, as long as I have full control over who lives and who dies, disease and health pending, I'd get rid of a good deal of humanity, because most humans are selfish cowards. At the very least, every world leader and politician that has ordered the deaths of innocents would go in the machine.
Honestly, the ability to kill would be far more beneficial for humanity than the ability to resurrect. But while I'm busy killing the evil people of our world, I might as well give the innocent people that were killed another chance at life in our no-longer-overpopulated world.
It's said that when someone lacks any real arguments they simply attempt to deconstruct the grammar of a statement as opposed to presenting anything of value.
Well done; I misspelled "you're"
My use of semi-colons though. Fairly acceptable grammar. But im not writing legal documents; this is an informal forum and I could care less about my grammar. DWI
So; anything to contribute? Or is Grammar Nazi your only track?
But here's something else to round it out; My selection process is based on IQ.
Correct use of semi-colons and spellings of "you're" are not part of that test.
Therefore any imagined deficiencies in this areas would not affect my IQ; ergo it would not affect my chance of the grinder. Even if it did contain those tests; they would represent a fraction of the cumulative IQ score and as such be fairly inconsequential.
Being so clearly enlightened I thought that would be obvious to you? Or did you not understand the selection process I outlined? Because thats what your response strongly suggests.
My point, which you obviously missed, was that IQ tests are purely academic; it took no more than your advocacy of the process to immediately show that you're a potential victim of it. Your grammar itself had nothing to do with it, and if you weren't implying that people who can't pass a test according your standards should die, I wouldn't have said a word about it.
You did, though, so you're being a prick and have no grasp of irony. Even moreso because you called someone "kid" without context, as much of a faux pas in intelligent conversation making on the internet as anything else, except unlike me, you had zero basis other than that you wanted to show how smugly self-satisfied with yourself you are.
So no, I think we're done here. If there was even one person who does badly on an IQ test that's a half decent human being for every smartass **** who did well, the world would be a better place, and I'm quite pleased that you have no say in the matter whatsoever.
Ok, first you groan at my very stupid "OP-jitsu," and rightfully so, but then you go on to not only fail to contribute, but insult people who have already contributed to the thread. What the hell man?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
