Kill few to safe many
In a couple of threats about murder the phrase ‘Kill one to safe many’ seems to be the most logical reasoning for murder. In our current world the total population is rising out of hand to the max of our planets carrying capacity. Ofcourse we don’t really know how many we can sustain. But in this theme I’ve got two questions for yall.
1. Let’s say we’ve reached our carrying capacity and we know it, it’s 6 billion. Should we kill 1 billion people to safe the other 6? or would we just let it all happen and see who die and survive? (concluding in at least WAY more deaths than 1 billion, and way more damage).
2. Since there are so many people, is it actually worth it to let one familiar person live at the cost of 10 (or whatever) unknown people. There are so many anyway?!
Curious what you guys think of this
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
there was something i read in my biology class about putting bacteria in a vacuum or something and giving it food. the bacteria grew and grew and grew and doubled each time and then, when the resources were all gone, it just died like that. i don’t think people would be okay with it. i’m not. and there are plenty of places to go, under water, underground, in space. hopefully by the time we reach capacity we will have some ideas on what to do about it. but i’ve heard a conspiracy theory that the new world order is gonna blow up most of the worlds population except for a few million or a couple billion, i don’t remember how much.
The planet can probably sustain 3-4times the current population.
Culling the population and letting it fester for another 50 years, while people fuck and repopulate it without changing the problem means we’ll have to kill 2billion by the year 2050, and 3 billion by the year 2200.
population explosion is a real threat in societies which do not encourage population planning. the planet space is limited and population is bursting at the seems, this is evident in china, India, Bangladesh, Pakistan etc.
the commuter trains , roads, shopping areas in London, India, New York , chick ago are full of people. even if you want to , you cant kill people in big numbers, and who on earth is going to do this, we have to learn to live with this. the future wars will be on water, gas, fuel, space
literate societies with mature approach may handle our problems other wise there will be wars with missiles flying all over us
Well I’m trying to avoid the discussion about how much we can sustain, I hear a lot of that in my school studies and it’s simply unknown. Population can increase to about 10 billion in 2050, but there are also scientific books about theories that the population is about to decrease (higher developed countries actually decline, more countries are getting developed –> slowly our rates are going down and eventually in some decades the population should decrease).
I’d like to hear the philosophical idea, IF we were sure we would (nearly) extinct if we keep up this amount of people, would you kill those 1 billion people, and how?!
Well.. Meh.. im not looking for ways of killing 1 billion people.
But like, should murdering be randomly all around the world, or focussed at one continent? Or would you just decide to let them all live and see what happens? Even if science would say that it’s going to be a total catastrophy
Killing 1 billion or killing 6 billion is irrelevant if the same problem is going to arise within the next 50 years. It’s a nonsensical question, 1 billion people means nothing when we’re growing faster than that per annum.
The most logical solution is to let them live and see what happens, since any other action is simply prolonging the inevitable.
The only population issue we will have is due to countries not being able to pull dicks out of their asses. There is an entire world, if we worked together we’d be fine. The world population is probably about to start going down anyways. China’s laws have an impact on this whole thing, ya know.
well, talk about coincidence, there is a (canadian i think) organisation named development perspectives and their FB share today is this. and the title reads:
Is murder ever OK? Does killing a few justify the saving of many? Check out Michael Sandel – The Moral side of Murder …..
but i support Sasho’s first comment here. who are they, who are we?
FYI this has been extensively discussed here: http://www.highexistence.com/discussions/topic/do-the-ends-justify-the-means-1/
Nature always sorts itself out. The planet is ok! There’s nothing wrong with it. It’s just reacting to whatever we put it through. We on the other hand are fucked my dear Heathens. I personally believe that the transformation process of our planets consciousness isn’t fast enough and we have to destroy ourselves before we can build something new. How we destroy ourselves I do not now. Overpopulation, war, disease or lack of resources. All could have been taken care of through transcending our current way of thinking and living.
But as it is now we are kinda fucked =P
We have a lot of alternate energy resources and methods of implementing them, but we as a race are not striding towards the actual implementation of those inventions.
So if we as a race don’t actively do something as of now, murdering billions or just as bad letting mother nature follow her course, we won’t transcend that way of thinking.
The earth has a comfortable carrying capactiy of 2 billion. Meaning two billion people can live on earth with an American standard of living. 2050 predictions slate the populace at 8-10.5 billion.
I don’t think we need to worry about it though. With the use of antibiotics on animals were spurring the creation of microbes that are resistant to treatment. When were living much closer together and our antibiotics aren’t functioning like they used to, we’ll start dropping like flies.
Nature is the great equalizer.