# Do you, or Don't you?



## The Master (Apr 25, 2008)

A question was asked in general among a group that I often debate with concerning a rather interesting and though provoking topic. 

The debate is of course, of no concern, but the question is. I'll ask it here and leave a few examples and wait for discussion before presenting my answer.

If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you? If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction? 

On the surface, a racist question. Look deeper. Consider carefully.

Perhaps expand it, to include all of humanity, except for a choosen few, inoculated and impervious to the virus.

Would that change your answer? Would it not?

Would you, if the power of a god to destroy was placed in your hands, would you use it?


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 25, 2008)

No I would not.

Problems and suffering are our own design and are the result of being born into this world. Destroying something because you do not agree with it or what you term as harmful does not mean in the grand scheme of things does not have benefit in some shape the same visa versa. 

I guess in some ways how would you feel if I used such a concept on everyone who had master in their screen name simply because I think its ego centeric and evil.:wink1:


----------



## Empty Hands (Apr 25, 2008)

No.  Whatever negative traits I thought would be wiped out by such an action would eventually crop up elsewhere.  That is only the cold-blooded logic of it, of course.  That ignores the fact that such an action would be deeply wrong under any moral or ethical system you would care to name.


----------



## The Master (Apr 25, 2008)

JadecloudAlchemist said:


> *I guess in some ways how would you feel if I used such a concept on everyone who had master in their screen name simply because I think its ego centeric and evil.*:wink1:


 
Bravo!  An excellent retort. Still, I shall hold my answers for a brief period.


----------



## JadecloudAlchemist (Apr 25, 2008)

> Bravo! An excellent retort. Still, I shall hold my answers for a brief period.



I can't compete with the master.

Cheers


----------



## theletch1 (Apr 25, 2008)

No, I wouldn't.  If it were a vial that would destroy TRAITS of individuals instead of individuals then I may.  Destruction of ANY entire group of individuals forgets that the group is made up of, well, individuals.  There are people of every race, creed, color, whatever that I admire.  To destroy the entire group would mean giving up the chance that one or more members of that group that could bring so much good to the world would be thrown out with the "chaff".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2008)

I might.

It would depend on the situation.

"Wait! How can you condone genocide?" I can hear already.

Easily, when the alternate might be worse.  "kill instantly" to me implies fast and painless.


But, to do it because I might have an issue with some brown, yellow, red, or not-my-shade-of-white people, no that I wouldn't do.


----------



## exile (Apr 25, 2008)

Godgod, no. Why would I want to do that? The question is posed as follows:

_If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would *instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, *would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction?_

Why would I want to kill any particular person of a given ethnic makeup, on strictly that basislet alone all of them?

Race and ethnicity are social constructs; they have no groundingnonenot one shredin biology. One of the few things I took away from my undergraduate courses in physical anthropology is that New Guinea pygmies and Copenhagen Danes share something like 99.9% of their genes. We are them and they are us. 

Every human group has moral greatness and evil, and everything in between, represented there. Our differences are _minute_, ethnically speaking. How could anyone sane contemplate doing _anything_ strictly on the basis of ethnicity??


----------



## Kacey (Apr 25, 2008)

In diversity lies strength - why destroy that diversity for the acts of a few members of a group?


----------



## Lisa (Apr 25, 2008)

No, I don't have the ability to remove any person from this earth, let alone play god with a certain race/ethnic group, etc.


----------



## The Master (Apr 25, 2008)

Expand the scope of your thinking. You are focusing on one simple aspect of the example, but are missing the grander scope of the question.

So, change it somewhat. Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to condemn a large portion of the populace to instant death?  Ignore the issue of race. Ignore the issue of religion. Ignore the issue of patriotic allegiance.  Ignore that I said "vial" and "virus".  Replace them with another means of mass death.

There is no right or wrong answer here. Unless you are focusing on the wrong question.

Remember, this is a philosophic exercise.


----------



## grydth (Apr 25, 2008)

Can you expect fully honest answers? 

Polling is said to have been off this primary season because many who would never vote for a black man would not openly admit it.

Can you expect any more here?  Who should wish to be labelled the next Hitler? How many would - rightly - think an affirmative answer would follow them the rest of their time on the Forum, if not beyond? 

I suspect most anyone who would snuff the accursed - - - - - - s at first chance will not admit it outside a close circle of like minded friends.

Your question is very relevant in this age of genocide, and supposedly post "mutually assured destruction'... but let's see how many yes's you get, with specifics.


----------



## Lisa (Apr 25, 2008)

The Master said:


> Expand the scope of your thinking. You are focusing on one simple aspect of the example, but are missing the grander scope of the question.
> 
> So, change it somewhat. Under what circumstances would it be acceptable to condemn a large portion of the populace to instant death?  Ignore the issue of race. Ignore the issue of religion. Ignore the issue of patriotic allegiance.  Ignore that I said "vial" and "virus".  Replace them with another means of mass death.
> 
> ...



Find me an indisputable way of knowing that these "people" with this certain gene will kill innocent people and I may consider it.

For me to bend my ethics I need absolutes


----------



## Sukerkin (Apr 25, 2008)

What a question, *Master* :tup:.

It is one of those internal dialogues that strikes to the core of what we are as humans.  It most certainly challenges our conception of what we are as compared to what we aspire to be.

Could I ever forsee me using such a device?  It depends on it's scope and the finese of it's operation.  Wipe out all of a certain ethnicity?  What purpose would that serve?  

Remove those of a certain 'type'?  

Hmmm, that weakens my moral resolve.  

If I could denude humanity of those members that fester cruelty and hatred in their hearts, whose only delight is in conflict and whose ascendency is only in their stupidity ... that is a tempting power to hold before someone.  

I'm more or less convinced that there is no such being as 'God' but does that justify my playing the role of a vengeful one?

A vital thing to consider is that I cannot see all consequences of my choice, so, even on purely pragmatic grounds, it's a decision I would be reluctant to make (for unless you are sure, you should not do what you cannot undo).  The moral compass is more sure - it simply would not be a moral act to exterminate an entire race or social strata (however tempting it may be).

As Galadriel said, "Even the very wise cannot see all ends".


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2008)

I think people missed the actual question.

It was this:


> If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you?



expanded to this:



> Would you, if the power of a god to destroy was placed in your hands, would you use it?



The rest was just frosting.

I might, as I said, do it... it depends on the situation. Here's a few.  
- An enemy fleet was sailing towards my nation. If a wave of my hand would destroy them, and save the lives of those I love, I would do it.
- An enemy is threatening my family. If I could call down fire to roast them, I would.
- Plague. Long slow painful and certain stalks the land. I hold in my hands a vial with a virus that kills instantly and painlessly. I would open it and end their pain.
- Famine. People are starving, death is certain but slow. If I had the power to release them, I would.

People are looking at the example and focusing on the racist part. I think that was in fact the intent. A distraction.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

If you're willing to kill an entire people root and branch who cares if you do it painlessly? At that point it's just massaging your own ego about what a kind and compassionate mass murderer you are. If that's what you want to do then pile the skulls so high you can't see over the top and revel in it.

The nice thing about wiping out a particular ethnic group is that you would almost certainly wipe yourself out as well. We're that closely related except maybe to the Khoi and San.


----------



## KenJoe (Apr 25, 2008)

Well look at it this way, so you are given the power to wipe ot a certian group, regardless of situation. You are given the power of a god in the palm of your hand, one of the bigger questions might be, do you act with human rational or with the rational of a god.

A man would let emotions and feeling get into his logic...people are suffering so I will end their suffering, instant death is better than slow death right. Who ever said that...a slow death may just be a long trial to build someone stronger to survive in other lesser situations. How many times of you yourself endured pain, only to find out later that lesser things no longer bothered you. Plus, isn't the statement of ending people suffering more of a ego thing, you are choosing to end their suffering. But who asked you.

I think the deeper root of this question is given the choice of whether or not I would choose to have the power to end an entire section of people, would I choose to have it, there is no depends...of course I would I am human. If I could have the power to flood the entire world then of course I would choose to have it, my human logic would take over, but I would hope I would only take it if I was willing to accept the responsibilty that that kind of power comes with.

As far as whether or not I would use the power. Seeing as how I was given the choice of whether or not I would use it, I would give the same question to those people, be it the suffering that wanted a quick end or whatever. A choice for a choice, control as much of a situation as you can...whether yes or no, no one can truly judge you harshly if all parties were given a choice.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 25, 2008)

KenJoe said:


> Well look at it this way, so you are given the power to wipe ot a certian group, regardless of situation. You are given the power of a god in the palm of your hand, one of the bigger questions might be, do you act with human rational or with the rational of a god.
> 
> A man would let emotions and feeling get into his logic...people are suffering so I will end their suffering, instant death is better than slow death right. Who ever said that...a slow death may just be a long trial to build someone stronger to survive in other lesser situations. How many times of you yourself endured pain, only to find out later that lesser things no longer bothered you. Plus, isn't the statement of ending people suffering more of a ego thing, you are choosing to end their suffering. But who asked you.
> 
> ...


Now that's an interesting twist.


----------



## Topeng (Apr 25, 2008)

Upon reading the OP, I instantly thought of the hypothetical question of whether or not I would have killed Hitler prior to him taking power or all the Nazis. In both the OP and the other question, my answer is still "No". 
Though our history consists of many periods we consider horrible, the world has been shaped by it and we have learned from those events. 
I also believe there is a balance. Who is to say wiping away one evil will not cause the rise of a greater one.


----------



## tellner (Apr 25, 2008)

Killed Hitler? Yes. He wanted to kill everyone like me. His people were responsible for a hell of a lot of violence against my relatives. They were in the ascendancy. They made no bones about their intentions. Purely as a matter of my peoples' survival it would have been an easy decision. 

1935? Yes.
1919? No.
In between? That depends.
Given omniscience? Hell, yes. In a heartbeat. And I wouldn't regret it for a second.

But would I kill all Germans? No.
These days would I kill all Arabs or Persians? Not a bit.
Hamas, the current President of Iran, large chunks of the Saudi religious establishment? If I thought it would help, then sure. They want to kill or enslave all Jews everywhere. They're completely upfront and unapologetic about it. 

But again, the difference is that I would only kill those who are a threat. Anyone else could become an ally, a friend or at least be content to mind his garden while I mind mine. By a number of standards that makes me overly sentimental and stupidly willing to let potential enemies survive. Oh well. That's the way it is.


----------



## OnlyAnEgg (Apr 26, 2008)

This is an interesting question.

Yes.  Unhesitatingly.  I am of the opinion that natural selection has long taken a back seat to the cleverness of the human race, with the numbers getting farther apart every day.  Thinking, as Joe suggests, god-wise and not man-wise and knowing I would likely be one of those to fall to the 'plague', 'flood', or other method of destruction, I would still say yes.  

Think of it as thinning the herd.

As far as Hitler is concerned, now we're talking assassination.  Whole different question.


----------



## exile (Apr 26, 2008)

I just want to echo *Tellner's* point, and suggest that the OP question is turning out to _really_ be the following: given your perception that a certain subset of humanity posed a threat to you of some degree of seriousness, would you do what was necessary to kill all members of that subset. Tellner's answer is basically: if the threat is an imminent deadly threat to me and/or mine (which might include innocent people not directly known to me, but who could have been me if circumstances were just slightly different), yes. But given our lack of foreknowledge, _not_ under any other circumstances. I think this is morally justifiable, under the imperative that nature has equipped us with:  _you have no access to any of your moral rights, or any other rights, or anything else at all, unless you secure your life in the first place. _


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 26, 2008)

Would it in my opinion (at that moment) be for the betterment of the rest of the world. 
Would it stop a nuclear war that could wipe out all of life on this planet? 
Would it bring about peace and harmony?
How many inventions, life saving methods, brilliant minds would it eliminate that might better the world in time to come.
What would be the repercussions and could they be avoided?

I guess I would need to ask myself these questions before or maybe after doing the deed


----------



## Nolerama (Apr 26, 2008)

The Master said:


> If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you? If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction?



Good question, but something of a conundrum in terms of your perception of "humanity." A myriad of questions sprout from your little nugget of curiousity. Here are some of mine:

*What makes us human?* An idea of "form," of "self," and awareness of other "selves" that allows us to interact in such a way as is positive and beneficial to the initial idea of "self." Some say that's part of what separates us from the animal: the ability and choice to socialize.

*Does the act of murder take away from our humanity? *Violently (the sudden act of losing life is violent) taking the life away from another "self" forces us to revert back to an animalistic phase; more reactive than a proactive concept of "self"-- yes, murder takes some of our humanity away from us.
*
What would motivate me to murder someone/ mass people?* I would need to revert back to an "animal" in order to begin the process of murder. Is that a bad thing? No. But I would not have used uniquely-human qualities that might avert such a situation. I would regret the lack of my humanity in the loss of so many lives.
*Do all "evil" people need to die? *Evil is a perception. We all have evil qualities perceived by others, as well as good ones. If all "evil" people die, then there would be no one left on the planet.
*
Do we need evil? *Like we need ourselves. For this group, many people in MA use evil as a motivator to train. Some for self defense against the "evil" "out there." Some train to keep in shape, poor health being an "evil" in life. Heck yeah, we need evil, just like we need our humanity to disseminate our perceptions of reality to determine what is good for ourselves.

*Would blindly killing large amounts of people make me less human?* In my opinion, yes. I no longer care about the awareness of others. For lack of a better term, I'm simply creating more space for myself and getting rid of competition in a violent manner; something animals do. The human being is political (Rousseau).

*Would killing an ethnic group NOT cause harm to myself?* There's a fallacy in that portion of your question. IF we perceive those killed as people, then as a group they should hold at least some good qualities for the rest of humanity. Therefore the loss of those people are a detriment to the expansion of my own awareness of humanity, and therefore cause harm to my idea of "self."



The Master said:


> Perhaps expand it, to include all of humanity, except for a choosen few, inoculated and impervious to the virus.
> 
> Would that change your answer? Would it not?
> 
> Would you, if the power of a god to destroy was placed in your hands, would you use it?



I see this as the other side of the coin to your previous question:

*If I had to choose who would live and who would die, would I choose life for everybody? *This personalizes the experience. An example used previously was Hitler. If he came up in line for me to inoculate him from a killing virus, would I deny that from him? Doctors swear an oath to help those in need regardless of their previous actions to maintain their humanity/awareness of human nature. If I had the Ultimate Cure, then would that not place me in the same category? In order to preserve my idea of self, I would subscribe to those same principles. I am not God, even if I had a power similar to God's.

The reality of it is that some people will die, assuming I had an Ultimate Cure. I can't reach 6.5 billion people. Choices will have to be made. Human nature includes nepotism, despotism, and all the other -isms that can corrupt and evil. I would change in the face of this situation. Some of my humanity would be lost by choice. To give me this kind of power would make me an animal, reflecting on the loss that my own being created due to physical limitation. Those dying and beyond my help (but aware of my being) would consider me a killer. I would be perceived as a murderer, an animal reacting instinctively to his surroundings, which cause death and destruction. Evil can come through inaction, this situation makes me evil...

Regardless, I want to maintain what I perceive as my humanity, my Self. Posing this situation on me would deny some, if not all of my being as I perceive it now.

I have hurty brain now. Thanks a lot.


----------



## tellner (Apr 26, 2008)

Nolerama said:


> Some say that's part of what separates us from the animal: the ability and choice to socialize.


Eh? All sorts of animals socialized. Many have complex, adaptive social behaviors. Consider dogs, whales, wildebeest, horses and crows.



> *Does the act of murder take away from our humanity? *Violently (the sudden act of losing life is violent) taking the life away from another "self" forces us to revert back to an animalistic phase; more reactive than a proactive concept of "self"-- yes, murder takes some of our humanity away from us.


Killing is killing. Murder is a culture-specific judgment we put on certain killings. We certainly come up with some very creative reasons to kill. And we expend huge amounts of ingenuity, time and physical resources coming up with ways to kill each other. And we can be very proactive about it. I can't think of another animal which will wait ten years to kill another of its kind over an abstract concept or breeding rights over a conspecific who has been dead for years.

Most animals kill each other for food, territory, breeding rights or control of some other important resource. Humans do that too. But they come up with some bizarre motivations as well. That would tend to make "murder" a _more_, not _less _human trait.


> *Do we need evil? *Like we need ourselves. For this group, many people in MA use evil as a motivator to train. Some for self defense against the "evil" "out there." Some train to keep in shape, poor health being an "evil" in life. Heck yeah, we need evil, just like we need our humanity to disseminate our perceptions of reality to determine what is good for ourselves.


You are trying to be slippery and conflate "evil", poor health, any sort of danger and probably a hundred other random things. That way you can dilute the concept enough to use it as you see fit. In the words of Inego Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

And do you know? I have never met anyone who use "evil" as a reason to do martial arts. Church of Satan Priest "Colonel Akula" has written about Satanism and self defense which might qualify. But he is speaking from a rather precious and idiosyncratic religious perspective. Most people learn to fight in order to be able to fight for their own reasons some of which may be evil by someone else's definition.



> *Would blindly killing large amounts of people make me less human?* In my opinion, yes. I no longer care about the awareness of others. For lack of a better term, I'm simply creating more space for myself and getting rid of competition in a violent manner; something animals do. The human being is political (Rousseau).


If anything it would make you more human. I can't think of a single other animal which carries out genocide for the sake of genocide.There probably aren't any which would plan ways to track down every member of another species and get rid of them all even leaving their normal business and traveling far outside their territory to do so.

Plenty of other animals have politics. Look at how a dog pack, monkey troop or herd of elephants works for examples. None is willing to die over the abstract question as to whether a piece of bread _literally _or merely _figuratively _becomes the sirloin of a dead Jewish carpenter.



> *Would killing an ethnic group NOT cause harm to myself?* There's a fallacy in that portion of your question. IF we perceive those killed as people, then as a group they should hold at least some good qualities for the rest of humanity. Therefore the loss of those people are a detriment to the expansion of my own awareness of humanity, and therefore cause harm to my idea of "self."


Not necessarily. They may have good qualities. But if they are a threat to me and mine the benefit of keeping them around pales in comparison to the harm they do by continuing to breathe. If we are competing for some vital resource, then I - and people who share my genes - will die if I allow them to live. I will be infinitely damaged thereby. So it would be rational, human and increase my chances at having continuing human experiences to kill them. 



> Regardless, I want to maintain what I perceive as my humanity, my Self. Posing this situation on me would deny some, if not all of my being as I perceive it now.



If simply posing the question or considering the answer would damage your self concept, then your Self is a very weak thing indeed and could probably use some creative destruction.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 26, 2008)

Adding a Galtonian twist, how would you use this power to improve the human race?

Are enough of us dying so that our population remains strong?  Perhaps this power could be used to avoid race degeneracy?

How does anyone know that every human life has an equal value?


----------



## Nolerama (Apr 26, 2008)

tellner said:


> Eh? All sorts of animals socialized. Many have complex, adaptive social behaviors. Consider dogs, whales, wildebeest, horses and crows.


 You're right. Those are social animals. I know it might be a little reaching, but I did mention the choice to socialize. 




tellner said:


> Killing is killing. Murder is a culture-specific judgment we put on certain killings. We certainly come up with some very creative reasons to kill. And we expend huge amounts of ingenuity, time and physical resources coming up with ways to kill each other. And we can be very proactive about it. I can't think of another animal which will wait ten years to kill another of its kind over an abstract concept or breeding rights over a conspecific who has been dead for years.






tellner said:


> Most animals kill each other for food, territory, breeding rights or control of some other important resource. Humans do that too. But they come up with some bizarre motivations as well. That would tend to make "murder" a _more_, not _less _human trait.



I fully agree that murder is a completely human trait. I don't think I was too clear. In my argument, I placed "humanity" on a pedestal; that humans can do good things. That was my premise. And its theoretical, I know. 



tellner said:


> You are trying to be slippery and conflate "evil", poor health, any sort of danger and probably a hundred other random things. That way you can dilute the concept enough to use it as you see fit. In the words of Inego Montoya "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."



I stand by what I stated simply because I wanted to use "evil" as a broad term for things negative to an individual without going into what's evil and what's good. Thanks, I have slippery way with words, I guess.




tellner said:


> And do you know? I have never met anyone who use "evil" as a reason to do martial arts... Most people learn to fight in order to be able to fight for their own reasons some of which may be evil by someone else's definition.



Very true. However, I think this is a point of contention in semantics.  I'm learning something here, and I see you point. Maybe I am being a little "slippery." Is there really an altruistic reason for doing anything?



tellner said:


> If anything it would make you more human. I can't think of a single other animal which carries out genocide for the sake of genocide.There probably aren't any which would plan ways to track down every member of another species and get rid of them all even leaving their normal business and traveling far outside their territory to do so.



I think genocide happens all the time with animals. Invasive species kill off indigenous ones. Ant colonies kill other ant colonies. 




tellner said:


> Plenty of other animals have politics. Look at how a dog pack, monkey troop or herd of elephants works for examples. None is willing to die over the abstract question as to whether a piece of bread _literally _or merely _figuratively _becomes the sirloin of a dead Jewish carpenter.



Political as in humans. Political from the Platonic sense.




tellner said:


> Not necessarily. They may have good qualities. But if they are a threat to me and mine the benefit of keeping them around pales in comparison to the harm they do by continuing to breathe. If we are competing for some vital resource, then I - and people who share my genes - will die if I allow them to live. I will be infinitely damaged thereby. So it would be rational, human and increase my chances at having continuing human experiences to kill them.



In this dialog, is this a conclusion? Is genocide a feasible goal? Would you be willing to open the vial?



tellner said:


> If simply posing the question or considering the answer would damage your self concept, then your Self is a very weak thing indeed and could probably use some creative destruction.



I don't consider myself a weak person when I know my limitations. Killing billions of people will hurt me. I am certain I will be damaged by doing so. I just wanted to pose a few of the questions spawned by the original. My personal conclusion would be No. Killing a bunch of people would not be good for me, nor would I see myself as a human being afterwards from my current point of view. While "creative destruction" might sound like a good suggestion for me, what about "creative construction?" I'd much rather build something than actively destroy. Whether it be something tangible, or something as intangible as a friendship. But that's just me.

I really liked the remark about "sirloin of Jewish Carpenter." I'm going to use that one.


----------



## championmarius (Apr 26, 2008)

> If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you?


Yes. Unequivocally, yes. Although I reserve the right not to use it.

Choices must be given and made, even if the choice is not to decide.

Looking at this from a Chaotician point of view, lets change the paradigm a tad.

I suppose a fair extension of this question would then be. 


> If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of the bovine species, with no harm to yourself, would you?


It puts the intent of the question into clear contrast without muddying the waters with the Subjective truth of Morality.
But the real kicker is "To what end?"

What is gained by eradicating all _Bos gaurus hubbacki (Thai wild Guar)_? How much positive impact could a possible future member of that particular group of cattle have had? What contributions to cattle society and culture could it have missed out on?

I guess it comes down to "How subjective is morality?"


----------



## Dagney Taggert (Apr 28, 2008)

No. negative. no way. Then you are making a judgement, assumption, etc, that all of these people are EXACTLY the same, think the same, etc.  IF I had the power of our almighty, I would know that the brilliance of life can sometimes lie within the presentation of one's opponent.  Anyway it's bad manners.

Dagney


----------



## elder999 (Apr 28, 2008)

The Master said:


> A question If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you? If say, a virus in a vial was presented to you that would instantly kill all those of a particular ethnic make up, would you break the seal and condemn them to extinction?
> 
> On the surface, a racist question. Look deeper. Consider carefully.
> 
> ...


 
Whether it included me or not, yes, I'd use it. There are far too many people on earth-for the good of the human race, some of us just have to be gone. I'd say everyone who doesn't have Polynesian blood, but my great-great grandmother was Polynesian, so  let's kill everyone but the pygmies, and be done with it. :lol:


----------



## tellner (Apr 28, 2008)

The nice thing about this question is that it will be moot pretty soon.

Except for the Khoi and San there's more genetic variation within the groups than between them. Those two groups and the third race of man - everybody else - nearly split genetically about 100,000 years ago. But they didn't. We travel more these days. Humans will breed with anything that has more or less the right number of chromosomes let alone legs. So I don't see it happening again until we have interstellar travel.

Give us a few hundred years. If we don't wipe ourselves out everyone will be beige and completely heterozygous. Then we'll have to find other things to oppress each other over. 

There's another serious 'gotcha' in the original question that will be apparent to anyone who's read _The White Plague_.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 29, 2008)

What if the deciding factor wasn't quite ethnic, but something else.
Everyone with red hair, or blue eyes, or just long hair?


----------



## Cryozombie (Apr 29, 2008)

Ha... YES.  Yes I would... since the OP posed the question stating It would be done WITH NO HARM TO YOURSELF I would wipe out the entire male population of the planet... being the only male left...

Well... Id be a very happy male.



Sorry Guys.


----------



## Makalakumu (Apr 29, 2008)

Cryozombie said:


> Ha... YES. Yes I would... since the OP posed the question stating It would be done WITH NO HARM TO YOURSELF I would wipe out the entire male population of the planet... being the only male left...
> 
> Well... Id be a very happy male.
> 
> ...


 
I got this next quote from a fortune cookie and it seems apt after this comment.

"Constant grinding turns an iron rod into a needle."




























pwn


----------



## The Master (Apr 29, 2008)

I promised when I began that I would answer, but after others had time to ponder the question. Here is my answer.

I would. Without hesitation, without regret, without remorse.
I would be called a hero and a leader for doing it.
As have others who in the past have done the same and similar.

Fixated are people on the issue of race, which is one possible way to examine the question. There are other paths however that have been over looked. Some have considered a portion of them, but missed are many an option.

What one sees in this question is but a mirror into their own mind and limitations. I submit that those focusing on the racial aspects are in fact somewhat bigoted themselves, and denying it. I am a member of the Human Race, not the white nor the dark nor the other shades of infinite variety that surround us.

Men sit in safe bunkers, hand on the key, able to rain death with the twist of a wrist and a few key strokes. Our leaders order destruction, protected by concrete and steel and filtered air. Rare today is the general felled in battle. 

The question is, a matter of perspective. 

The greater question of good vs evil is of course food for later debate.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 29, 2008)

Of course not. You cannot tell a bad person from a good one on sight, and to claim/attempt to is asinine. If everyone was the same, life would be pretty boring.


----------



## Big Don (Apr 29, 2008)

Bob Hubbard said:


> What if the deciding factor wasn't quite ethnic, but something else.
> Everyone with red hair


 Death to the Gingers?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Apr 29, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Death to the Gingers?


I always prefered Mary Ann anyway.


----------



## CoryKS (Apr 29, 2008)

The Master said:


> If you had the power to totally and completely wipe out a particular portion of humanity, with no harm to yourself, would you?


 
Depends.  Do I have the power to totally and completely control the subset that will be affected?  In other words, nobody dies except those whom I wish dead?  I'm going to assume "yes" since you later assume "the power of a god", which suggests omnipotence.

At this time, no.  But I could.  Keep in mind that within the bounds you have set, this portion could range from everybody to just one person.  So it's not necessarily a racial question - it could be that guy over there who is harming my family.

There can be no reason to kill others simply for their racial makeup.  But what about eradicating those who are hosts for certain ideas?  I think that's what genocide usually targets.  Problem is, if an idea occurred once it can occur again.  Even if you define your terms carefully and remove everybody who holds the idea you are trying to erase, there's no guarantee that the idea won't come back.


----------



## stone_dragone (Apr 29, 2008)

This an interesting question that smacks of a conversation that my Chaplain and I had a few weeks ago.

For those who are familiar with the portion of the Christian Gospels relating to what is called "The Passion," the Apostle Peter, believed by many to be the closest and most loved Apostle, is told by Jesus that he (Peter) will deny knowing him (Jesus) three times before the sun rises the next morning.  Peter, of course is incredulous.  It happens any way.

We all like to think that we will be the strong one, or the right one, or the one that will face the fire for a cause...choosing to be the noble one.  One of the lessons in the Bible story that I cited is that no matter what our intentions, when faced making the actual decision, those best laid plans oft' go awry...and not just a little bit, either.  We think that we'll be there, but we are most often jsut like Peter...or even more so, Judas.  

I learned long ago that it's bad business to say "I'd NEVER do that..."

So in order to be right in the long run...yeah, I'd probably do it, although I'd like to think that I wouldn't.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (Apr 29, 2008)

Hmmmmm.

This business of having the power to kill a large group....

There is no question in my mind that there are more than enough people currently walking this planet that we would be better off without.

Some people just NEED to die.

But this idea of an entire group.....men, women, children, without regard to guilt or innocence.....

Well that's a bit of a problem, or at least to me it is, anyway.(There is a difference between merely being hard-hearted and being out-and-out *heartless*, after all).

But I have been given the power of a god, you say?

Fair enough 

(waves hand over vial) *VORP*

I have now used my godlike power to alter the scenario.

This vial now no longer contains a virus causing instant death, but rather, instant, irreversible *sterility*.

The target group is the entire human population of Earth.

I will break the vial at my feet so that the first to suffer the effect is myself.

I'll not harm, or take, any innocent life, yet I WILL bring an end to the cycle of human uselessness, Forever.

(Like as if you needed any more proof of how far my faith in humanity has fallen........)


----------



## The Master (May 3, 2008)

The answers herein have been an enjoyable read. I see that some have begun to think outside of the box. Very good.


----------



## Bigshadow (May 3, 2008)

exile said:


> One of the few things I took away from my undergraduate courses in physical anthropology is that New Guinea pygmies and Copenhagen Danes share something like 99.9% of their genes. We are them and they are us.



Most of it is commented out.     It is the small percentage that separates us from the earthworms.  



exile said:


> How could anyone sane contemplate doing _anything_ strictly on the basis of ethnicity??



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Sukerkin (May 3, 2008)

Andy Moynihan said:


> Well that's a bit of a problem, or at least to me it is, anyway.(There is a difference between merely being hard-hearted and being out-and-out *heartless*, after all).


 



Andy Moynihan said:


> (Like as if you needed any more proof of how far my faith in humanity has fallen........)


 
I quite agree, my friend.  

Sadly, it seems that it will ever be the case that those in positions powerful enough to make decisions should never be allowed to be there.

It is almost tempting to further bend the 'rules' of this thought experiment to be such that you could remove all the population of the world, bar the minimal genetic requirement of 500 or so.  Bringing the rest, compatable and mutually supportive, into one town from which we could start again and see if we can't get it right *this* time.


----------



## Dagney Taggert (May 3, 2008)

okay, so I've been mulling over the question....

I have seen, up close, the horrible effects of sloth, the lack of education, passion, birth control, and moral standards.  Our society has developed institutionalized compassion for people who CHOOSE to quit school, not work, have multiple children and not worry a bit over the subsequent string of tragedies that go along with ignorant behavior.  

So, if I were Queen of the Forest, I would use the vial to eliminate those who do not contribute to, pardon the expression, the village, the greater good.  And by "contribute", I mean the working people, from the clerk at the hamburger joint to the CEO of the company.  Those on long-term public assistance, who have multiple kids with multiple people, no job, and no respect for their village, would be eliminated.


----------



## Kembudo-Kai Kempoka (May 3, 2008)

OnlyAnEgg said:


> This is an interesting question.
> 
> Yes. Unhesitatingly. I am of the opinion that natural selection has long taken a back seat to the cleverness of the human race, with the numbers getting farther apart every day. Thinking, as Joe suggests, god-wise and not man-wise and knowing I would likely be one of those to fall to the 'plague', 'flood', or other method of destruction, I would still say yes.
> 
> ...


 
I would in a heartbeat. Randomly reduce the world population back to the 1 billion point. Many issues related to pollution, world hunger, sheer numbers lost in religious and territorial conflit...A significant reduction in the number of people would be a great assistance to the overall future of mankinds ability to live in balance with it's environment.

D.


----------



## Empty Hands (May 3, 2008)

Boy oh boy, am I glad none of you have this power.  I wouldn't last a heartbeat.


----------



## CoryKS (May 3, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Boy oh boy, am I glad none of you have this power. I wouldn't last a heartbeat.


 
Oh?  You're a telemarketer?  'cuz they're definitely on my short list.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (May 3, 2008)

Debt collectors, telemarketers, and a couple of government agencies here in NY would be the groups I'd target.  Oh yeah, and that clueless dingding that was ahead of me at Wallimart tonight.


----------



## Andy Moynihan (May 4, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> Boy oh boy, am I glad none of you have this power. I wouldn't last a heartbeat.


 

(Actually in my case you and everyone currently existing you cared for would last as long as you otherwise would have lasted before me)


----------

