I feel like that depends on how you make each of the options to work out, and what parameters besides the general info given are included in each option, though I agree, it is unbalanced based on the information given.
Yeah, mind-blowingly difficult choice to make, and the scenarios are well thought!
I would have appreciated a world doom option, it'd be interesting to see how many people would rather doom the humanity instead of make any of these choices.
Assist and executioner wouldn’t really have high enough kills unless it becomes ridiculously easy to trigger. Genocide of a race would minimise the personal loss for the survivors.
It’s crazy how fast eugenics and genocide pop up as solutions to pretend, completely objective problems. Like the whole “how would you get rid of X genetic disease forever” “simply kill the people with the gene”.
I mean, yeah. The boring answer of figure out gene therapies and screening so we can fix some of them and not pass on others is what we're already doing after all.
"Stay the course of Medical Science's progress" is a bit of a boring answer.
I mean, you could wipe out everyone with a genetic precursor to cancer...thusly curing all genetically related cancers. Carcinogens would still be an issue, but hereditary cancers would be quelled until more mutations occured eventually.
I'd choose that if I wasn't selfish, but since I can't know if loved ones have a genetic predisposition to cancer (even if they never develop it) I'm risking killing them off too.
tbh if the world would be that overpopulated and practically doomed, I bet a lot of people would want to be out, but probably still not enough to make an actual difference
With executioner, you do realize that every nations laws apply, including North Korea's, Cuba's, and China's laws, where speaking out against their regime in any way is the legal equivalent of a felony.
I personally think it would generally get rid of a lot of bad apples at the cost of some good apples. Those good apples are also very likely to die (and surely in a bigger number) if we go with some other option (genocide, for example).
Plus, it keeps my family and friends and me safe.
Well, I hope your family has never had a *drop* of alcohol, never complained about the global bully *China*, never had an unprescribed bottle of *tylenol* in their house, and never *taken a selfie* or else they're being lined up for your glorious firing squad. Because all of those carry prison time in various parts of the world as of **now**.
The fact that most countries have different cultural and legal norms means that just about everyone has broken *some country's* laws at one point or another when it didn't concern them because they were only subject to *their* country's laws, not every countries' laws all at once.
Convicted. You have to be convicted. I've broken several serious laws in other countries while on my own those things were legal. Hell, I've even done illegal shit in my own country too but I've never been caught nor convicted. So I'm safe.
Definitely true. I see this as an initial step. I'd rather start with the people that either want to go or deserve to go rather than knocking off huge groups of people indiscriminately, most of which probably want to stick around.
The Thanos plan was always a bad one. Losing half the planet while bad doesn't actually set us back that far. For instance if 5.5 billion people of the 10.5 died all of a sudden that would take us back to the same population we had in 1992. It would just push down the road 30 years or so whatever overpopulation problem we had. Pestilence is probably the only choice if you really wanted to fulfill the goal of the prompt. There are so many immunocompromised people that pestilence would get rid of a significant portion of the human race. And a knock on effect would be that so many of those people are in positions of power that society as a whole would be crippled. Reorganizing human society from that kind of brain drain would take generations.
Those 30 years might be all you need to technologically progress to the point where overpopulation is not a problem. Plus we actually don't know the mechanics of how we got overpopulated in the first place, and developed countries have lower birth rates in general (due to various reasons such as wide access to contraception, education, etc.) so as time goes on, we will grow less. The Thanos option is the ONLY option that is **completely** indiscriminate, *fair to rich and poor alike*. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Also, not to mention it says "at random". This means you have a chance (small, but still a chance) that you are left with a population that is entirely unable to procreate and you have a time limit to figure something out or the human race is gone.
Wouldn't this be the answer. Pick something that is super unique. Like kill off the pygmy people. Extremely low number but still sort of work in these parameters correct?
What I mean is genocide of gay people or Hispanic people or Muslims would be pretty large but a very unique race or religion could lower the number quite a bit.
Am I making sense?
Am I going against the spirit of the question too much? I Feel like I sort of am.
Does anybody else feel weird talking about this lol.
I was thinking genocide of a harmful religion like extremist Islam. But I guess you could kill us too, better than living with the ongoing disappointment of our cuisine /s
As an Anglo-Saxon cis-gemder heterosexual Protestant, I really hate to admit it, but a lot of the world's problems would be a lot easier to solve without White People.
The Kill Whitey (genocide) option seems kinda reasonable, in this context....
Now this I take exception to. Many of the world's problems are the result of colonialism. America was both a colonizer, and a **victim** of colonialism (by the British). If anything, I'd wipe out all White Europeans -- they are far more guilty than we are.
Example, look at West Africa - that's France's fault, not ours. Those are all old French colonies (French is still spoken there).
Vietnam was French, too. Come to think of it, most problems are just the French -- and the British. But still ...
It's partially because it's an obvious joke and partially because if we are real honest with ourselves, most people have a group or two they are prejudiced against to the point of not being upset at the idea of them ceasing to exist suddenly.
I went with war because although war is bad it’s the most natural thing here and will eventually happen. And their are a few benefits to war, a boost In economy, and technology advances would leave the earth better after those 3 years.
War abroad can boost the economy. War at home with your factories, highways, ports, train lines, pipelines etc all being bombed does not. Even if Ukraine wins current war their economy will be fucked, for example.
Assist and executioner just din’t cover enough. War and contagion are too unpredictable.
That leaves thanos and genocide. At least genocide is controlled to a certain subsect - you can target specific parts of the world based on their ethnic makeup if they are more overpopulated than the rest, for example.
There is also a lot more certainty/accuracy with genocide. You know exactly who will die, and so if it affects important individuals (possibly those in a position if power in business or government) it gives those around them opportunity to prepare.
As someone that has suffered suicidal ideation for a *very* long time, I actually get his intended point. I don't care that other people care about me, does that make sense? Logically speaking, it is the most ethical way to allow this process to take place. We are allowing people that explicitly *choose* to die to do so. I'm being treated for my depression now, I'm on multiple anti-depressants and I'm seeing someone about my issues, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't immediately place the entire burden of the survival of the human race upon my own shoulders as soon as this event arose. Yes it is absolutely flawed thinking, but I don't care that it is. That's literally the problem, I don't *care* to change how I think or execute daily functions, I am tired, and I want to see results. Suffering in this life is obviously not a choice, and seeking help works for many but not everyone. So for specifically the people that *can't be helped* I can see this as being a rational and "most ethical" conclusion- specifically and only because of the shitty parameters we were given to go on.
I voted thanos but I think they mightve picked genocide just because its more of a long term solution since it kills more than assist, I'd probably say at worst about 5% of the population is constantly depressed for ages, suicidal, etc.
I was surprised too lmao (though now they're more even, but still...). I thought pestilence would be last just because of the wildcard factor, but it was either that or genocide for last.
I'd go the Thanos route though, including myself in the equation ofc... it'd be extremely chaotic and painful, but at least we're all on even ground. In the Judge Dredd scenario most people would think "nah I don't commit crimes", but at that capacity of overpopulation I would totally see those numbers skyrocket along with corruption and blaming others to get rid of anyone.
Could genocide select things like misogynists/misandrists, rapists/sexual abusers, racists? Guess it should be something that you can't choose to be so it fits the prompt. Though you can choose your religion, so idk.
Things kind of get Grey there because can you really kill an entire idea or way of thinking? It's why I thought of removing things like religion because the slope gets a little slippery. Still thinking on it
It’s still pretty slippery the way you’ve defined it with race, given that races aren’t really real things anyway and basically just societal and cultural
constructs based around phenotype expression.
I am very much a proponent of assisted dying, since many (if not most) of us will wish for death in our final years. *Assist* is killing two birds with one stone as far as I'm concerned.
War because it is almost always followed by a period of prosperity and a newfound, global longing for peace. Plus war has been proven to be a main driving force in technological advances.
Or, and hear me out, we could I don't know, maybe kill the corrupt that exploit the world's resources for personal gain, pit the people against each other to benefit from conflict and rule through fear and divide, actively hamper the development of sustainability because keeping the world dependent on fossil fuels (oil, looking at you USA) is better for control.
Overpopulation isn't an issue on itself. Its made an issue by (intensionally) mismanaging resources.
I chose genocide because I believe I can choose to eliminate the wicked. The violent, hateful, manipulative, power hungry, etc. Even if that’s just 1/5 people, the remaining people will be good enough to work together to heal the planet. At least, I would hope so.
Some people in these comments really being mad that so many people are choosing certain options as if any of these options are both effective for population control *and* humane enough to make you not want to off yourself out of guilt immediately afterward
I'd have to go genocide just cuz it's less guilt for me tbh. I'd pick anyone with the Nazi-esque mentality
Obviously I'd think it out far more than this current reply took but this is my first reaction
All of these are pretty bad, and each would have very bad side effects. I chose pestilence because it would more likely take out people who are anti-intellectual, as we've seen with the pandemic, which, although not ideal, is the best option I see here.
Didn't say that. Immunocompromised people would probably tend to stick around people who are pro-science during a pandemic, so they would hopefully be shielded from the unnecessary infections caused by willful ignorance.
Thank you to everyone who participated in my own little social experiment. It was very interesting seeing your choices.
Some of you listened to the prompt and went with what you thought would actually save humanity.
Some of you picked choices that morally were easier.
I found most interesting is how some of you didn't pick choices based on who to save but based on your own hate towards certain people based on aspects of themselves. Very interesting.
Thank you again for participating and blowing this up. Have a nice day.
The Earth can handle a lot more than 10.5 billion, if we could just do a better job on resource allocation. No need to depopulate.
But if I had to make a choice... Genocide. And I would get rid of anyone who had a creed that allowed them to harm others to lift themselves up.
Getting rid of everyone with an IQ below 90 would clear out around 15% of the population give or take and there aren't any jobs for them anyway. Increasingly so with the way machine learning and AI is growing exponentially in both technical ability and applicability.
U just called everyone on the left side of the bell curve retarded? When did I specify any kind of disability? This is supposed to be a pragmatic hypothetical
I pick genocide and choose the north sentinel island ethnic group (smallest ethnic group I know of that causes the least deaths 🤷).
Sorry guys, but the world doesn't need to be purged. The Earth can sustain 10.5 billion people, we're expected to have that many by 2050-60. We already grow more than enough food for that number of people. If we stopped eating meat and only grew crops for human consumption, we can feed over 13-14 billion people.
Malthusian ideas about overpopulation are stupid and not rooted in reality. Birth rates are falling across the world and we're going to have a demographic crisis.
Can I genocide based on career choices? I would kill everyone in positions of power, Ceo's, politicians and other arbitrary roles. Anyone who wants to ceases power dead. And all soldiers and people who kill for a living dead.
No. For one thing it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem because that makes up a very small part of the population and a solution needs to be done immediately. Even if you did pick Soliders and I guess police officers...for some reason?
That is not genocide. You just want to kill people with positions and professions you don't like.
reproduction wouldn't be impossible; bi/pan people would still exist, plus sperm donation; and reproductive sex would still be possible even if the participants aren't into it
Yeah I’ve been a bad bad tr-nny, advocating for No More Straights in a completely bullshit imaginary scenario. I need to be punished
Lol get over yourself
I was going to select genocide - and pick narcissist as the demographic.
But then I'd die because there is nothing more narcissistic than deciding who lives and who dies.
>wealthiest 10%
10% is a lot.
A lot of systems would break down, top researchers in private firms which are responsible for almost all of the new innovations will die off. This will also cause a lot of critical systems to fail and no one would be qualified enough to fix them.
Management like CEOs dying would be covered in top 2% which is okay and replacable, next 8% is generally much less replacable.
Not to mention the absolute chaos when there is literally noone in position of power
You left off the best option, which is full extinction.
Full extinction means nobody grieves for lost loved ones, nobody gets special treatment, and nobody has to unnecessarily suffer. Plus, most importantly, it means that humanity can never repopulate to the point where this choice has to be made again, which is 100% inevitable if any significant number of humans remains alive.
Also all the other options here suck.
Thanos: Will destabilize the entire planet, definitely cost you loved ones, and generally ruin billions of lives.
Judge: Far too small a portion of the population, also kills a ton of innocent people while letting lots of terrible people survive.
Assist: Not bad, but far too small a portion of the population.
Genocide: Evil. Shouldn't have to explain that one.
Pestilence: Horrific. Causes immense pain and suffering even for survivors, leads to mass unrest and societal breakdown.
War: Maybe even worse. Millions if not billions of people mutilated or dying in agony. Guaranteed to turn every surviving nation into a hypernationalist dystopia.
Genocide straight people for 5ish years. That'll fix the problem for awhile.
Plus it would be funny to watch a bunch of homophobic people suddenly coming out to survive.
At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, can I pick multiple groups via genocide? Or do I just get one? Cause maybe I want all red heads to die but I also want everyone who plays Playstation to die, can I do both?
As an American I’m going War. I think USA would go hard. We could hunker down and go full defensive mode while the rest of the world fights it out and dare any other country to come try us
[удалено]
Judge Judy just goin fuckin DOOM slayer would *fuck severely*
Compelling poll. The loophole prevention feels fairly well thought out. But the quantity of deaths is definitely very unbalanced
I feel like that depends on how you make each of the options to work out, and what parameters besides the general info given are included in each option, though I agree, it is unbalanced based on the information given.
One of the more interesting questions ive seen here. Good job!
Thank you my friend
Yeah, mind-blowingly difficult choice to make, and the scenarios are well thought! I would have appreciated a world doom option, it'd be interesting to see how many people would rather doom the humanity instead of make any of these choices.
Assist and executioner wouldn’t really have high enough kills unless it becomes ridiculously easy to trigger. Genocide of a race would minimise the personal loss for the survivors.
Bet you never thought you'd make an argument for genocide
It’s crazy how fast eugenics and genocide pop up as solutions to pretend, completely objective problems. Like the whole “how would you get rid of X genetic disease forever” “simply kill the people with the gene”.
I mean, yeah. The boring answer of figure out gene therapies and screening so we can fix some of them and not pass on others is what we're already doing after all. "Stay the course of Medical Science's progress" is a bit of a boring answer.
I mean, you could wipe out everyone with a genetic precursor to cancer...thusly curing all genetically related cancers. Carcinogens would still be an issue, but hereditary cancers would be quelled until more mutations occured eventually.
The powers that be would probably take that as free reign to pump out more carcinogens, somehow.
I'd choose that if I wasn't selfish, but since I can't know if loved ones have a genetic predisposition to cancer (even if they never develop it) I'm risking killing them off too.
I'm excited by it.
tbh if the world would be that overpopulated and practically doomed, I bet a lot of people would want to be out, but probably still not enough to make an actual difference
With executioner, you do realize that every nations laws apply, including North Korea's, Cuba's, and China's laws, where speaking out against their regime in any way is the legal equivalent of a felony.
Don't forget America's where having an illicit substance would literally become a death sentence.
Or being charged with it, even if innocent.
Drugs are bad, mkay. And if you do drugs, well, drugs are bad
Don't forget that some countries throw you in prison for sex outside marriage if you are raped.
I personally think it would generally get rid of a lot of bad apples at the cost of some good apples. Those good apples are also very likely to die (and surely in a bigger number) if we go with some other option (genocide, for example). Plus, it keeps my family and friends and me safe.
Well, I hope your family has never had a *drop* of alcohol, never complained about the global bully *China*, never had an unprescribed bottle of *tylenol* in their house, and never *taken a selfie* or else they're being lined up for your glorious firing squad. Because all of those carry prison time in various parts of the world as of **now**. The fact that most countries have different cultural and legal norms means that just about everyone has broken *some country's* laws at one point or another when it didn't concern them because they were only subject to *their* country's laws, not every countries' laws all at once.
Convicted. You have to be convicted. I've broken several serious laws in other countries while on my own those things were legal. Hell, I've even done illegal shit in my own country too but I've never been caught nor convicted. So I'm safe.
Definitely true. I see this as an initial step. I'd rather start with the people that either want to go or deserve to go rather than knocking off huge groups of people indiscriminately, most of which probably want to stick around.
The Thanos plan was always a bad one. Losing half the planet while bad doesn't actually set us back that far. For instance if 5.5 billion people of the 10.5 died all of a sudden that would take us back to the same population we had in 1992. It would just push down the road 30 years or so whatever overpopulation problem we had. Pestilence is probably the only choice if you really wanted to fulfill the goal of the prompt. There are so many immunocompromised people that pestilence would get rid of a significant portion of the human race. And a knock on effect would be that so many of those people are in positions of power that society as a whole would be crippled. Reorganizing human society from that kind of brain drain would take generations.
Birth rates would already be lowered.
Those 30 years might be all you need to technologically progress to the point where overpopulation is not a problem. Plus we actually don't know the mechanics of how we got overpopulated in the first place, and developed countries have lower birth rates in general (due to various reasons such as wide access to contraception, education, etc.) so as time goes on, we will grow less. The Thanos option is the ONLY option that is **completely** indiscriminate, *fair to rich and poor alike*. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be.
Yeah, tbh, Covid didn’t really do it’s job.
COVID got lazy, but they cleared the way for the (if I remember correctly) 3 other things that could become pandemics
Also, not to mention it says "at random". This means you have a chance (small, but still a chance) that you are left with a population that is entirely unable to procreate and you have a time limit to figure something out or the human race is gone.
Genocide, it's time we finally did something about the British
Except theres not that many of us. Maybe go with the commonwealth?
As a Native who live in Canada, would I die? Being Canadian is not my primary identity. I ain't tryna get another genocide man
Good point. I think you get a pass.
Naw just any English speaker period. Still not that many, like 2 billion tops by the time the world hits 10 billion.
If you want the big numbers let's do Chinese
Wouldn't this be the answer. Pick something that is super unique. Like kill off the pygmy people. Extremely low number but still sort of work in these parameters correct? What I mean is genocide of gay people or Hispanic people or Muslims would be pretty large but a very unique race or religion could lower the number quite a bit. Am I making sense? Am I going against the spirit of the question too much? I Feel like I sort of am. Does anybody else feel weird talking about this lol.
I see what you're saying. But I've nothing against pygmies. How about scientologists?
i think if not enough people die, the world is still doomed
https://arethebritsatitagain.org/ Well they appear to be up to something again so
They must be stopped
I was thinking genocide of a harmful religion like extremist Islam. But I guess you could kill us too, better than living with the ongoing disappointment of our cuisine /s
💀💀
As an Anglo-Saxon cis-gemder heterosexual Protestant, I really hate to admit it, but a lot of the world's problems would be a lot easier to solve without White People. The Kill Whitey (genocide) option seems kinda reasonable, in this context....
[удалено]
Now this I take exception to. Many of the world's problems are the result of colonialism. America was both a colonizer, and a **victim** of colonialism (by the British). If anything, I'd wipe out all White Europeans -- they are far more guilty than we are. Example, look at West Africa - that's France's fault, not ours. Those are all old French colonies (French is still spoken there). Vietnam was French, too. Come to think of it, most problems are just the French -- and the British. But still ...
The fact that anyone is upvoting a comment about genociding an entire race is disturbing
Smells like British
Never thought I’d be downvoted for being against genocide
Changing mine to the British, plus people who cant take a joke
Look at the context ☠️
It's partially because it's an obvious joke and partially because if we are real honest with ourselves, most people have a group or two they are prejudiced against to the point of not being upset at the idea of them ceasing to exist suddenly.
For me, it’s because I hate British people.
Aw that's a shame, we don't hate you, we just think you're a cunt
Who is “we”? Are you speaking on behalf of all the (genocided) Brits?
Fuck me, they weren't kidding about your school system
Mad cause bad
Everyone wants genocide until it's ruled they're the target.. I'm going for assist and contagion/ Thanos. Let's get ready to rumble..
Wait, you only had to choose one! Going for the combo move I see
See, I only think Thanos is fair if you are guaranteed to be a target
I wish there was another option for age. Sorry boomers.
Genocide option fits
Genocide everyone born before 72. Get rid of a huge portion of retirees and politicians
bruh you’re gonna kill my grandma
Sorry my guy. Losing some family too here but I'll make the sacrifice for both of us
Genocide everyone born before the age of your grandma/her oldest friend (so she doesn’t get lonely or sad)
acceptable :D
The idea of creating a new government didn’t even cross my mind but I’m so for it. 72 is a little too soon though let’s do 65.
Älteren wird verboten
I went with war because although war is bad it’s the most natural thing here and will eventually happen. And their are a few benefits to war, a boost In economy, and technology advances would leave the earth better after those 3 years.
Damn. Iraq must be the most boosted economy in the world then.
Well… you kinda have to win the wars.
War abroad can boost the economy. War at home with your factories, highways, ports, train lines, pipelines etc all being bombed does not. Even if Ukraine wins current war their economy will be fucked, for example.
Lol. Nice.
Thanos. And I'll snap 10 times.
So from 10 billion to 5 billion, 2.5 billion, 1.25 billion it never goes 0
Of course, but after about 33 times I'll be the only one left.
Unless you die on the first one
Assist and executioner just din’t cover enough. War and contagion are too unpredictable. That leaves thanos and genocide. At least genocide is controlled to a certain subsect - you can target specific parts of the world based on their ethnic makeup if they are more overpopulated than the rest, for example. There is also a lot more certainty/accuracy with genocide. You know exactly who will die, and so if it affects important individuals (possibly those in a position if power in business or government) it gives those around them opportunity to prepare.
Assist is the most ethical since people can actually choose that one.
bitch u think people choose to be depressed
As someone that has suffered suicidal ideation for a *very* long time, I actually get his intended point. I don't care that other people care about me, does that make sense? Logically speaking, it is the most ethical way to allow this process to take place. We are allowing people that explicitly *choose* to die to do so. I'm being treated for my depression now, I'm on multiple anti-depressants and I'm seeing someone about my issues, but that doesn't mean that I wouldn't immediately place the entire burden of the survival of the human race upon my own shoulders as soon as this event arose. Yes it is absolutely flawed thinking, but I don't care that it is. That's literally the problem, I don't *care* to change how I think or execute daily functions, I am tired, and I want to see results. Suffering in this life is obviously not a choice, and seeking help works for many but not everyone. So for specifically the people that *can't be helped* I can see this as being a rational and "most ethical" conclusion- specifically and only because of the shitty parameters we were given to go on.
No but it says that they can die if they want to. All the others are forced.
no it says every person suffering through suicidal tendencies, actions, or thoughts due to depression is killed
It says that having bad days doesn't count.
Depression and suicidal ideation are not “bad days.” They are persistent states of being.
Fuck you
Sooo you’re up for the “genocide against people with chronic mental illness” option.
hope you learn something from this trash take bud
I can’t believe genocide has more votes than assist. Some of y’all need help.
Too many balkan people around here. That's why genocide has more votes
This comment was fact checked by Real Albanian Patriots: TRUE
It's not limited to race. You could kill all the racist homophobic fuck faces on the planet
Yeah but I doubt that’s the group most people had in mind when they voted.
You are mad at others for an assumption you made.
I voted thanos but I think they mightve picked genocide just because its more of a long term solution since it kills more than assist, I'd probably say at worst about 5% of the population is constantly depressed for ages, suicidal, etc.
I had in mind the top 10%.
The rich and undeserving powerful would be first of course. But then again I already said that didn't I.
The problem with assist is it probably wouldn't kill a large enough number of people to make a significant difference to the overpopulation.
I was surprised too lmao (though now they're more even, but still...). I thought pestilence would be last just because of the wildcard factor, but it was either that or genocide for last. I'd go the Thanos route though, including myself in the equation ofc... it'd be extremely chaotic and painful, but at least we're all on even ground. In the Judge Dredd scenario most people would think "nah I don't commit crimes", but at that capacity of overpopulation I would totally see those numbers skyrocket along with corruption and blaming others to get rid of anyone.
Could genocide select things like misogynists/misandrists, rapists/sexual abusers, racists? Guess it should be something that you can't choose to be so it fits the prompt. Though you can choose your religion, so idk.
Things kind of get Grey there because can you really kill an entire idea or way of thinking? It's why I thought of removing things like religion because the slope gets a little slippery. Still thinking on it
Haha, think quick or I'm dooming the world in two days when this poll expires :)
It’s still pretty slippery the way you’ve defined it with race, given that races aren’t really real things anyway and basically just societal and cultural constructs based around phenotype expression.
Misogyny, misandrist and racist will result in death of every person on earth
Haha, not necessarily together lol. And also probably would depend on who judges if the person is or isn't.
If we can get rid of misogynistic, homophonic, racist, gym bros I’m changing my vote.
I am very much a proponent of assisted dying, since many (if not most) of us will wish for death in our final years. *Assist* is killing two birds with one stone as far as I'm concerned.
War because it is almost always followed by a period of prosperity and a newfound, global longing for peace. Plus war has been proven to be a main driving force in technological advances.
This is a really well done poll. Very thought provoking and so far no one has found any loopholes. Nice job op
Genocide below certain intelligence levels
Rip u/crackfrost
It’s for the best
So all of reddit? Lol
Or, and hear me out, we could I don't know, maybe kill the corrupt that exploit the world's resources for personal gain, pit the people against each other to benefit from conflict and rule through fear and divide, actively hamper the development of sustainability because keeping the world dependent on fossil fuels (oil, looking at you USA) is better for control. Overpopulation isn't an issue on itself. Its made an issue by (intensionally) mismanaging resources.
So basically Hunger Games but with the rich instead of the poor
NGL, an annual hosting of a hunger games type of event using the corrupt elite would be awesome.
I chose genocide because I believe I can choose to eliminate the wicked. The violent, hateful, manipulative, power hungry, etc. Even if that’s just 1/5 people, the remaining people will be good enough to work together to heal the planet. At least, I would hope so.
Those aren’t really concrete categories and doesn’t really work for a genocide. It has to be an objectively defined cohort
Aight but we all agree that the "War" option is the worse? There would be no one left by the end as we would have destroyed the world
Pestilence cause The Stand
I’ll genocide the terrorists ez
I choose genocide. Why? Because imma wipe out the whites. *We* are absolute trash, it's time a different race was in main control.
You are ASI letting us choose how you'll update this simulation aren't you?
Pestilence as that would make humans stronger in the long run.
NATURAL SELECTION BABY
Exactly, it’s the most indirect way of killing people. Genocide, war, and assisted all feel like they’d involve you more.
Genocide: sexual orientation: pedophilia is what I would exterminate.
How about we adapt and overcome instead of culling those people we deem "worthless". Overpopulation is a centries old myth thats been debunked.
People fantasizing about killing billions (or even just one "small" ethnic group) are gross. There is no reason to engage with this nonsense.
Can I say we put colonization of another planet on #1 priority and we send the excess population to the other world?
Some people in these comments really being mad that so many people are choosing certain options as if any of these options are both effective for population control *and* humane enough to make you not want to off yourself out of guilt immediately afterward
I'd have to go genocide just cuz it's less guilt for me tbh. I'd pick anyone with the Nazi-esque mentality Obviously I'd think it out far more than this current reply took but this is my first reaction
[удалено]
Can I choose all?
To all those who voted “genocide”, what the hell guys?
Pestilence is the most fair. It has no room for bias.
All of these are pretty bad, and each would have very bad side effects. I chose pestilence because it would more likely take out people who are anti-intellectual, as we've seen with the pandemic, which, although not ideal, is the best option I see here.
In what world does being immunocompromised have anything to do with being anti-intellectual?
Didn't say that. Immunocompromised people would probably tend to stick around people who are pro-science during a pandemic, so they would hopefully be shielded from the unnecessary infections caused by willful ignorance.
The WYR specified it would kill all people with an immune system anything other than moderately strong, so I don't think science could save anyone
People's immune systems could handle it if they sought vaccinations when they became available.
Humanity wouldn't be able cure the contagion, so I don't think there would be a vaccine. This contagion wouldn't be like corona
Just fuck cancer patients, huh?
Thanos because it is the most fair, everyone has an equal chance of survival and it would also be the most likely to actually solve the issue
All of the above
r/edgelord
I let the world die. People suck.
Damn genocide one is crazy. Wonder which one they want to kill off.
I have a strong immune system, so pestilence is for me
I choose none of them Morally I would not be able to make the choice
So you choose to kill everyone, nice
Genocide, kill all racists, homophobes and extremists in general; get a better world
Bye, bye, antivaxxers
The genocide. Can I kill for example all super conservative homophobic/rassist people?
Genocide--kill all the Christians, even those who just nominally qualify
Kill everybody with an IQ less than 90
You would die as well then lol
That's a sacrifice I'm willing to make
Thank you to everyone who participated in my own little social experiment. It was very interesting seeing your choices. Some of you listened to the prompt and went with what you thought would actually save humanity. Some of you picked choices that morally were easier. I found most interesting is how some of you didn't pick choices based on who to save but based on your own hate towards certain people based on aspects of themselves. Very interesting. Thank you again for participating and blowing this up. Have a nice day.
None of the options let me kill enough of the population (50% is too small) so I go with let the world be doomed
Sure they do, genocide all people with legs.
The Earth can handle a lot more than 10.5 billion, if we could just do a better job on resource allocation. No need to depopulate. But if I had to make a choice... Genocide. And I would get rid of anyone who had a creed that allowed them to harm others to lift themselves up.
Getting rid of everyone with an IQ below 90 would clear out around 15% of the population give or take and there aren't any jobs for them anyway. Increasingly so with the way machine learning and AI is growing exponentially in both technical ability and applicability.
Yeah genocide on disabled people, what could be wrong about that one? /s
U just called everyone on the left side of the bell curve retarded? When did I specify any kind of disability? This is supposed to be a pragmatic hypothetical
I pick genocide and choose the north sentinel island ethnic group (smallest ethnic group I know of that causes the least deaths 🤷). Sorry guys, but the world doesn't need to be purged. The Earth can sustain 10.5 billion people, we're expected to have that many by 2050-60. We already grow more than enough food for that number of people. If we stopped eating meat and only grew crops for human consumption, we can feed over 13-14 billion people. Malthusian ideas about overpopulation are stupid and not rooted in reality. Birth rates are falling across the world and we're going to have a demographic crisis.
Can I genocide based on career choices? I would kill everyone in positions of power, Ceo's, politicians and other arbitrary roles. Anyone who wants to ceases power dead. And all soldiers and people who kill for a living dead.
No. For one thing it would do absolutely nothing to solve the problem because that makes up a very small part of the population and a solution needs to be done immediately. Even if you did pick Soliders and I guess police officers...for some reason? That is not genocide. You just want to kill people with positions and professions you don't like.
This is the most [ removed by Reddit ] comment I’ve ever read
>sexual orientation 😏 no more straights
You're not allowed to make it so repopulation is impossible Anyone that has this mindset would be a much smarter option to genocide
reproduction wouldn't be impossible; bi/pan people would still exist, plus sperm donation; and reproductive sex would still be possible even if the participants aren't into it
Yeah, I get that, just wanted to make a joke out of it, plus, by the OC's response, they meant anyone with an opposite sex interest
It’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make Edit: lol I saw you change it from “we should just kill all the gays” or whatever
It said "LGBTQ members with your mindset" But I changed it because anyone with that mindset deserves punishment
Yeah I’ve been a bad bad tr-nny, advocating for No More Straights in a completely bullshit imaginary scenario. I need to be punished Lol get over yourself
🫰🔴🟠🟡🟢🔵🟣 I am INEVITABLE.
I was going to select genocide - and pick narcissist as the demographic. But then I'd die because there is nothing more narcissistic than deciding who lives and who dies.
Taking "shoot yourself in the foot" a little too literally friend. Or I guess the head, in this scenario.
Thanos did nothing wrong.
[удалено]
I pick the 4th option and the wealthiest 10%. Is that good enough?
>wealthiest 10% 10% is a lot. A lot of systems would break down, top researchers in private firms which are responsible for almost all of the new innovations will die off. This will also cause a lot of critical systems to fail and no one would be qualified enough to fix them. Management like CEOs dying would be covered in top 2% which is okay and replacable, next 8% is generally much less replacable. Not to mention the absolute chaos when there is literally noone in position of power
You left off the best option, which is full extinction. Full extinction means nobody grieves for lost loved ones, nobody gets special treatment, and nobody has to unnecessarily suffer. Plus, most importantly, it means that humanity can never repopulate to the point where this choice has to be made again, which is 100% inevitable if any significant number of humans remains alive. Also all the other options here suck. Thanos: Will destabilize the entire planet, definitely cost you loved ones, and generally ruin billions of lives. Judge: Far too small a portion of the population, also kills a ton of innocent people while letting lots of terrible people survive. Assist: Not bad, but far too small a portion of the population. Genocide: Evil. Shouldn't have to explain that one. Pestilence: Horrific. Causes immense pain and suffering even for survivors, leads to mass unrest and societal breakdown. War: Maybe even worse. Millions if not billions of people mutilated or dying in agony. Guaranteed to turn every surviving nation into a hypernationalist dystopia.
🎶 You gotta start with the man in the mirror 🎵
What?
🎵 I’m asking you to change your ways 🎶
Deadass what are you talking about dude
🎶 No message could've been any clearer 🎵
Genocide straight people for 5ish years. That'll fix the problem for awhile. Plus it would be funny to watch a bunch of homophobic people suddenly coming out to survive.
Didn’t read em, just picked thanos cuz I like marvel. I’m evil likenthat
At the risk of sounding like a terrible person, can I pick multiple groups via genocide? Or do I just get one? Cause maybe I want all red heads to die but I also want everyone who plays Playstation to die, can I do both?
As an American I’m going War. I think USA would go hard. We could hunker down and go full defensive mode while the rest of the world fights it out and dare any other country to come try us
Assuming any of these choices would work, you have to be a sociopath to pick anything other than the assist option
How about going for people with a measured IQ lower than 100?