Happy New Year! The January Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species. Discuss it now.

The February Philosophy Book of the Month is The Fourth Age by Byron Reese (Nominated by RJG.)

Culling People

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2903
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 5th, 2018, 1:51 am

Alias -

So you think communism is the answer.
AKA badgerjelly

CIN
Posts: 93
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am

Re: Culling People

Post by CIN » October 5th, 2018, 7:10 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 4:47 am
In some future scenario imagine that resources becmoe so low that the human population can no longer sustain itself in such high numbers.

Imagine a global government.

Many people thorw aroudn the idea of who to save, but they often leave out the nasty business of who will be left behind. To address this directly the situation is such that 1 billion people need to be culled to save the p-lanet and humanity.
I challenge your premise. The end of humanity would not result in the destruction of the planet - it would actually have almost the opposite effect. If humans died out, the biosphere would recover from the damage we are inflicting on it, and other species would be able to thrive. As a result, the world would almost certainly become a happier place. Therefore, as world leader, I would simply let humanity die out. That would be the moral thing to do.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2903
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 5th, 2018, 7:33 am

CIN -

It’s not a premise. It’s a hypothetical. I was well aware that “saving humans only” may leave anti-human minded apathetic so I added all life on Earth.

Given that you don’t care for humanity you’re inhumane. You can work out the rest for yourself. Also, the option to “do nothing” was not present in the hypothetical.

So in short, you appear not to understand the question posed or lack the back bone to face the question. I am assuming the former.
AKA badgerjelly

CIN
Posts: 93
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 10:33 am

Re: Culling People

Post by CIN » October 5th, 2018, 9:19 am

Burning ghost wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 7:33 am
CIN -

It’s not a premise. It’s a hypothetical. I was well aware that “saving humans only” may leave anti-human minded apathetic so I added all life on Earth.

Given that you don’t care for humanity you’re inhumane. You can work out the rest for yourself. Also, the option to “do nothing” was not present in the hypothetical.

So in short, you appear not to understand the question posed or lack the back bone to face the question. I am assuming the former.
What you really mean is that you are unwilling to face up to the fact that your question was badly posed. Your bad.

Alias
Posts: 2529
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 5th, 2018, 12:42 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 1:51 am
Alias -

So you think communism is the answer.
Certainly, communism is the answer to "What is the most equitable economic organization of a society?"
But that wasn't the current question.
The current question was: How would I decide which billion people to eliminate so that the rest can survive?
The above are my criteria for deciding.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2903
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 5th, 2018, 12:56 pm

I think you should reread the OP then. Wealth was not an issue.
AKA badgerjelly

Alias
Posts: 2529
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 5th, 2018, 2:11 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 12:56 pm
I think you should reread the OP then. Wealth was not an issue.
Wealth may not have been an issue for you, but limited resources were the central issue.
Thus, for me, wealth becomes a criterion, since the accumulation of wealth by a small minority of humans accounts for the limitation of resources available to the vast majority of humans. Therefore, to insure the continuing availability of resources for all of the remaining population, I deemed it necessary to eliminate that segment of the population who would attempt to monopolize those resources in the future.
Plus, I deemed it fair to execute those people who have been responsible for the suffering of others, rather than the ones who have suffered.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2903
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 5th, 2018, 2:35 pm

Alias -

Okay then. Let’s imagine wealth is an issue. That means everyone in the US with a net worth of around $700,000 falls into this category. Do you think financial success to be a reason to be killed? Seems strange, then again I’m kind of used to your views so don’t expect them to be well thought out or able to stick to the actual question posed.

Make your own thread on killing “wealthy” people.

It is interesting to see how people react. The one’s who choose to ignore the OP or misread it likely do so for a reason. Or am I reading too much into this? ;)
AKA badgerjelly

Alias
Posts: 2529
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 5th, 2018, 3:11 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 2:35 pm
Alias -

Okay then. Let’s imagine wealth is an issue.
Not an issue. A criterion.
That means everyone in the US with a net worth of around $700,000 falls into this category.
I was speaking globally. Each of those people control far more than their reported income. https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/14/richest ... ealth.html
Do you think financial success to be a reason to be killed?
Yes. As previously stated: because of how financial "success" is accomplished, what policies it supports politically, what conflicts it engenders socially, and its cost to the world in terms of resource consumption and allocation, pollution, environmental degradation, damage to future generations of human and detriment to other life-forms, and the fact that those same people would pursue that same kind of "success" post-culling, which would undo much of my hard work.
... your views so don’t expect them to be well thought out or able to stick to the actual question posed.
The question as posed:
I am asking how you personally would deal with this matter if you were our world leader and had the authority to decide absolutely what to do.
The question I answered, in detail.
Make your own thread on killing “wealthy” people.
No need. I've covered it three times now.
But you strangely overlooked everything else I said, including the scourge on military, death industries and clergy.
Or maybe the wealthy are all you care about?

It is interesting to see how people react. The one’s who choose to ignore the OP or misread it likely do so for a reason. Or am I reading too much into this? ;)
[/quote]

Alias
Posts: 2529
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 5th, 2018, 3:15 pm

The one’s who choose to ignore the OP or misread it likely do so for a reason. Or am I reading too much into this?
Or too little and with insufficient attention?
Why ask a question if you don't want answers?

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 2903
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 5th, 2018, 4:20 pm

Alias -
Not an issue. A criterion.
Not if I state for the purposes of the hypothetical scenario.
I was speaking globally. Each of those people control far more than their reported income.
So was I. The top 1% includes anyone with a networth of around $700,000. If we were talking purely about income then you’d have to include everyone earning around $30,000 or more a year.
Why ask a question if you don't want answers?
I merely pointed out the criteria you missed.
AKA badgerjelly

Alias
Posts: 2529
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 5th, 2018, 6:41 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 5th, 2018, 4:20 pm
I merely pointed out the criteria you missed.
You asked on what basis we made our decisions. I told you my criteria for choosing which people to cull.
A billion is a lot of people to get rid of, and that 1%, however you calculate net worth, own and dispose half the world's resources. That's only 760 million people, and there is an almost complete overlap with the top tiers of the occupational categories, so we need another 240 million in criminals and terminal patients. Might even have to go down another 0.01 percent.
You can have your own criteria, but I don't miss them.

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 285
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Halc » October 5th, 2018, 8:26 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 4:47 am
To address this directly the situation is such that 1 billion people need to be culled to save the planet and humanity.
I'm curious what exact goal is being met by this action. "Save the planet" seems best served by letting the house of cards collapse on its own.
Perhaps 'save humanity', but why?
Asimov wrote that golden rule about 1: Do no harm, or by inaction, let harm happen. Seems that this sort of scenario demonstrates the failure of this prime directive. Action and inaction will both cause harm, so we need a different prime goal around which we might design our best action.

Steve3007
Posts: 5685
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Culling People

Post by Steve3007 » October 5th, 2018, 8:38 pm

Burning ghost wrote:The one’s who choose to ignore the OP or misread it likely do so for a reason.
If they disobeyed the OP by suggesting reducing the population by limits to new births rather than killing existing people, I suspect that reason is probably that they'd rather not murder a billion people if they don't have to.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3251
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Culling People

Post by LuckyR » October 6th, 2018, 2:18 am

Alias wrote:
October 4th, 2018, 11:19 pm
Stage 1a. Let everyone who has already requested assisted suicide go ahead without delay;
b. approve all requests for abortion and/or sterilization.
Stage 2. Take all hopeless and comatose patients off life-support.
Stage 3. Kill those with a net worth in the top 1%. (Every one of them is guilty of mass murder.)
Stage 4. Kill top two tiers of military, espionage and black ops organizations; demob all the rest.
Stage 5. Review crimes of long-term inmates; kill the ones I consider a danger to the public, let the rest go.
Stage 6. Kill top executives in the fossil fuel, weapons and chemical toxins industries.
If it's still not, ask for volunteers....
... but it's probably enough.
Make damn sure all who want it have full, free access to birth control and euthanasia.
Keep in mind that killing old people (since they would have died soon anyway), doesn't change the population much. In addition they have already had their kids, so there is no multiplicative effect. OTOH removing first world children, offers the maximal reduction in the use of resources.
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply