The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

Culling People

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7735
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Greta » October 6th, 2018, 3:05 am

There already has been considerable reduction in the number of first world children being born but a much larger addition of those from poorer nations moving into a first world lifestyle.

Really, I don't think there is an answer. Whatever is coming is going to come and there will be carnage globally. In the light of that, it seems a good idea anyway to reduce pointless suffering and free up some medical resources for those it can actually help rather than harm via what are effectively torture sentences handed down to the dying to satisfy a minority's ideology.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 6th, 2018, 9:20 am

Steve3007 wrote:
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.
As you noticed early on this is the trolley problem minus the option to “do nothing” yet many would prefer the “do nothing” option rather than face the horror of the question asked. I added the “wealth” factor because I assumed someone would want to blame someone for the event.

As I’ve said before I don’t take any public answer to these questions seriously. For me the point of moral dilemmas for me is to answer the question to yourself, no matter how horrendous it may be, and throw out thoughts about what you find without declaring something to make you feel part of “how others may see you.”

Even for myself. I presented what I would do, but also noticed that I may very well, in a similar situation, act in a more socially “amoral” way - perhaps to get rid of certain elements of society I dislike due to ignorance, jealousy, spite or any number of other hidden motives.
AKA badgerjelly

Dachshund
Posts: 512
Joined: October 11th, 2017, 5:30 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Dachshund » October 6th, 2018, 9:32 am

If an accurate, reliable scientific means for identifying individuals with severe, untreatable psychopathic mental disorders becomes available, and the indications are that it will in the relatively near future ( for example by genetic screening technology or medical technology that can detect the presence of known biomarkers for psychopathy ) then any person (child or adult) who tested positive should be culled. Likewise, any persons medically diagnosed as having an Intellectual Disability Disorder either congenital or acquired, (this basically means any adult with a confirmed IQ score of less than 70 points as measured on a standardised intelligence questionairre like a Welscher IQ test, or returned an unsatisfactory score on an Executive Function behavioural rating scale should be culled. Similarly, any child who tested positive to a laboratory genetic/ other validated biomarker screen for known IDD conditions like Down's Syndrome or the like) should also be culled.

Regards

Dachshund

User avatar
Greta
Site Admin
Posts: 7735
Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Greta » October 6th, 2018, 5:34 pm

Dachshund wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 9:32 am
If an accurate, reliable scientific means for identifying individuals with severe, untreatable psychopathic mental disorders becomes available, and the indications are that it will in the relatively near future ( for example by genetic screening technology or medical technology that can detect the presence of known biomarkers for psychopathy ) then any person (child or adult) who tested positive should be culled.
I too think the "worst of the worst" are better off dead than allowed to continue terrorising, raping, beating and further criminalising or damaging other inmates, as is the situation today.

However, a psychopath test as suggested above would leave society almost entirely without of political or commercial leadership, and thus may be overly disruptive during the transition to non-psychopathic management.

Alias
Posts: 2684
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Culling People

Post by Alias » October 6th, 2018, 9:03 pm

Greta wrote:
October 6th, 2018, 5:34 pm
However, a psychopath test as suggested above would leave society almost entirely without of political or commercial leadership, and thus may be overly disruptive during the transition to non-psychopathic management.
We could muddle through with the civil service, clerks and secretaries. It's not the "leaders" who make things work.
But I do object to taking out of the world some of the nicest people - and certainly, as a class, far the lest destructive - just because they're intellectually challenged.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 7th, 2018, 12:47 am

Let me show ou my thinking here ...

First off I thought about “wealth” prior to posting this thread and decided not to include it because embedded within that question is whether or not it would be best to kill the most wealthy and the most poor. I was also thinking about the effect on society long term if such a decision as made based on wealth - I woudl presume it would make for a very frail society if people were snigled out for either being too wealthy or lacking wealth causes a middle ground were people felt ashamed to either “succeed” or “fail” to too large a degree. I am just nto sure how productive this would be and how big a rift in society it woudl cause AND how long such a wound would take to heal (if at all!?)

Plus there has been a great deal of talk about wealth inequality so didn’t want to get too far into that here.

I nearly added “intelligence” to the “no no” list but there are problems embedded within there due to definition and accurate tests - but we can assume some “perfect” test for the sake of the hypothetical if we wish and then dig further.

Another option could be to cull the unemployed - if society has no place for these people then perhaps that woudl be an easy choice - again though what about the effect on society long ter of such a choice?

I got to thinking about what it is that I value in people and came to the conclusion that once I stripped away any disparity of wealth, intelligence, education, religion, criminal activity, “disabilities”, and profession that what mattered to me most was teh morality of the indivdual - I could not, and cannot, see anything below the grounding of “morality” as a value of huma being. The only other thing I could single out is something very difficult to define; that is “creativity” which I see as essential for progress and explorative functions (but even then I find myself asking what more “amoral” anti-human attitudes there are that actually help instill a push toward a more moral approach toward people?

As Alias notes above having evil geniuses is generally a detriment to society if they are not enough counter “good” geniuses to tip the balance in favour of human flourishing. And then I find myself asking how much this moral conflict allows us to progress and whether a reduction of “evil” in the world would neccessarily “help” humanity overall or simply make us apathetic?

Is there anything below our idea of “moral grounding”? I cannot see anything myself.
AKA badgerjelly

Steve3007
Posts: 5750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Culling People

Post by Steve3007 » October 7th, 2018, 3:24 am

Greta wrote:However, a psychopath test as suggested above would leave society almost entirely without of political or commercial leadership, and thus may be overly disruptive during the transition to non-psychopathic management.
:D

Georgeanna
Posts: 435
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Georgeanna » October 7th, 2018, 7:18 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.
Interesting list. I think you would get on well with Banksy - but then again...he might just cut you into shreds :)

'' Banksy's works have dealt with various political and social themes, including anti-war, anti-consumerism, anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism, nihilism, and existentialism. Additionally, the components of the human condition that his works commonly critique are greed, poverty, hypocrisy, boredom, despair, absurdity, and alienation.[179] Although Banksy's works usually rely on visual imagery and iconography to put forth their message, Banksy has made several politically related comments in their various books.

In summarising his list of "people who should be shot", he listed "Fascist thugs, religious fundamentalists,

and) people who write lists telling you who should be shot."[180]

While facetiously describing his political nature, Banksy declared that "Sometimes I feel so sick at the state of the world, I can't even finish my second apple pie."[181]''

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy#Po ... ial_themes

Steve3007
Posts: 5750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Culling People

Post by Steve3007 » October 7th, 2018, 7:46 am

In summarising his list of "people who should be shot", he listed "Fascist thugs, religious fundamentalists,

and) people who write lists telling you who should be shot."[180]
If this is true, and the shooting are carried out in order by the people who write the list, then I guess it becomes crucially important which category of people are placed at the top of the list! :D

Steve3007
Posts: 5750
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: Culling People

Post by Steve3007 » October 7th, 2018, 7:53 am

And consider this:

Fascists,
Religious Fundamentalists,
People who makes lists of people and shoot the people on that list,
People who make lists and only shoot the people in the list who don't shoot themselves.

Does that last one shoot himself?

Georgeanna
Posts: 435
Joined: October 29th, 2017, 1:17 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Georgeanna » October 7th, 2018, 8:09 am

Steve3007 wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 7:53 am
And consider this:

Fascists,
Religious Fundamentalists,
People who makes lists of people and shoot the people on that list,
People who make lists and only shoot the people in the list who don't shoot themselves.

Does that last one shoot himself?

Shoot yourself last. Why not ? Could you live with yourself ?

Perhaps Banksy already has his self-destruct mechanism in place ?

He quote Picasso: 'The urge to destroy is also a creative urge.'

Banksy clearly thinks well ahead.

'' A few years ago, I secretly built a shredder into a painting.

The video then shows someone in a hoodie installing the device, before another caption, saying: "In case it was ever put up for auction."

The video then shows the moment the painting shredded itself at the auction house on Friday, captured on a mobile phone.

It is unclear how the shredder was activated.''


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-45770028

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 294
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Halc » October 7th, 2018, 8:46 am

From OP:
Burning ghost wrote:
October 3rd, 2018, 4:47 am
I am not asking you to say who you would and wouldn’t “cull” - although if you feel obliged to say feel free to do so. 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.
From a few hours ago:
Burning ghost wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 12:47 am
Let me show ou my thinking here ...

First off I thought about “wealth” prior to posting this thread and decided not to include it because embedded within that question is whether or not it would be best to kill the most wealthy and the most poor. I was also thinking about the effect on society long term if such a decision as made based on wealth - I woudl presume it would make for a very frail society if people were snigled out for either being too wealthy or lacking wealth causes a middle ground were people felt ashamed to either “succeed” or “fail” to too large a degree. I am just nto sure how productive this would be and how big a rift in society it woudl cause AND how long such a wound would take to heal (if at all!?)

Plus there has been a great deal of talk about wealth inequality so didn’t want to get too far into that here.

I nearly added “intelligence” to the “no no” list but there are problems embedded within there due to definition and accurate tests - but we can assume some “perfect” test for the sake of the hypothetical if we wish and then dig further.

Another option could be to cull the unemployed - if society has no place for these people then perhaps that woudl be an easy choice - again though what about the effect on society long ter of such a choice?
I got from that OP that you wanted to discuss how to go about it, and not so much who to do it to. The part above seems to contradict that.
I got to thinking about what it is that I value in people and came to the conclusion that once I stripped away any disparity of wealth, intelligence, education, religion, criminal activity, “disabilities”, and profession that what mattered to me most was teh morality of the indivdual - I could not, and cannot, see anything below the grounding of “morality” as a value of huma being.
The moral people are the ones that got us into this mess. If you were in charge of dealing with the matter, you'd be top of the list of immoral people to eliminate.

I find the situation unrealistic. People cull themselves naturally, more in places where it is needed and less where it is not. The way to deal with the situation is simply not to interfere with the culling when it is occurring elsewhere. Of course lack of interference with it is an immoral act.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 7th, 2018, 9:32 am

Halc -

“How to go about it” is different from “who” in a way I cannot quite see. If you are to approach the problem and you cannot randomly choose who is to die then ou have to place some people above others in some fashion you deem most “appropriate”.
The moral people are the ones that got us into this mess.
The situation is hypothetical with no mention of blame. So “nobody” has gotten us into the hypothetical “mess”. I merely stated that the scenario is such that the Earth has gone over its human capacity and that 1 billion people need to be culled in order to preserve all life on Earth.
I the situation unrealistic.
I’d be shocked if you didn’t. The trolley problem is also unrealistic. Realism is not the main aim of a hypothetical situation. As I’ve also mentioned I specifically took the “do nothing” option off the table. You HAVE TO make a choice if you take the hypothetical scenario seriously - and if you do you’ll likely see something horrific within you never knew lurked there.
If you were in charge of dealing with the matter, you'd be top of the list of immoral people to eliminate.
Yes, but that still means another 999,999,999 more people to pick out. Remember, the “you” means “me”, “you” or “whoever else” was give the task under whatever unrealistic scenario you can conjure up (not that any scenario needs to be conjured up because it’s a hypothetical in which I am putting it to the reader to explore for themselves.)

One person may find themselves destroying people who run the government institutes, another may choose handicapped people for some reason, people with low IQ or people who adhere to this or that ideology.

Note: my last post was meant to show my thinking prior to posting the OP and the kind of directions this hypothetical scenario led me in.
AKA badgerjelly

User avatar
Halc
Posts: 294
Joined: March 17th, 2018, 9:47 pm

Re: Culling People

Post by Halc » October 7th, 2018, 1:54 pm

Burning ghost wrote:
October 7th, 2018, 9:32 am
Halc -

“How to go about it” is different from “who” in a way I cannot quite see. If you are to approach the problem and you cannot randomly choose who is to die then ou have to place some people above others in some fashion you deem most “appropriate”.
Who is easy then. Those that cannot find a way to continue their survival get chosen to die. It's how the rabbits solve this very problem.
I find the situation unrealistic.
I’d be shocked if you didn’t. The trolley problem is also unrealistic.
I find this very similar to the trolley problem, and that part is realistic. The unrealistic part is this thing in the OP about absconding resulting in the end of life on earth. The trolley problem is not about total ruin. It is about many people if you do nothing, and fewer but different ones if you take proactive action. Maybe the many-people is all people, but it still isn't all life. Plenty of species have gone extinct. It is natural and not a calamity at all from the perspective of Earth. Humanity simply has a choice about the situation like no species before, and yet we're incapable of acting as subsets of the whole for the benefit of the whole.
Realism is not the main aim of a hypothetical situation. As I’ve also mentioned I specifically took the “do nothing” option off the table. You HAVE TO make a choice if you take the hypothetical scenario seriously - and if you do you’ll likely see something horrific within you never knew lurked there.
I think Rush FreeWill lyrics commented on this one. Do-nothing is always on the table, and it very much constitutes a choice, and it makes a pretty good list of people deserving to die. The only thing that the leader would need to implement is a way to prevent interference with the natural mechanism.
If you were in charge of dealing with the matter, you'd be top of the list of immoral people to eliminate.
Yes, but that still means another 999,999,999 more people to pick out.
Well, I did pick them out, but I didn't do it based on my perception of their morality. Yes, if I did it that way, I suppose I would take out the billion first and do myself last, and it would be a torture to make me wait until then.
One person may find themselves destroying people who run the government institutes, another may choose handicapped people for some reason, people with low IQ or people who adhere to this or that ideology.
The low-IQ thing is interesting. It implies a goal to breed for IQ, sort of the opposite of the current breeding trends.

User avatar
Burning ghost
Posts: 3037
Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am

Re: Culling People

Post by Burning ghost » October 7th, 2018, 2:31 pm

Halc -

Hypothetical questions don’t have to be realistic. If you cannot relate to the question then that is another matter.
AKA badgerjelly

Post Reply