I kill myself instead lmao

You may find the OP amusing but I was curious ... I guess people’s reactions to such a difficult scenario does result in blithe humour in order to disregard the deeply troublesome thought of placing oneself in this scenario with sincerity.

Note: I a curious about how the scenario makes you feel MUCH more than any attempt to answer it publicly.

I’m going to be posting something along those lines at a later date so wait for that one if you wish.

We make decisions like that all the time.

Vaccinations and medications and surgeries for example save billions of people, but some people will die as a result. We know that some people will die, but we use these medical interventions anyway cause the good outweighs the bad.

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies. — I like sushi

We make decisions like that all the time. — NKBJ

Usually, I decide to let the human race die.

Perhaps you should have thought out this scenario more. What thing could make such a contingency? You can make the decision to take out 1 billion in India alone and the world will still suffer overpopulation.

I have so many questions but if I had to absolutely make a decision I would step down. I couldn’t decide the fate of human beings on that platform on that magnitude. Morally I would be distraught to know I sentenced a billion people.

If it has to be done tomorrow, it would just be a practical matter of whoever you can manage to kill by tomorrow, however you're going to kill them. It wouldn't be an easy matter to kill a billion people in less than 48 hours.

True but there is a difference with medical procedures and deciding the fate of a large group of people. Just imagine this scenario for a second. I’m an American, and let’s say I have the power to decide the fate of 1 billion people. Also imagine my social/political beliefs as well as religious beliefs are called into account.

I think more often than not people with this much power make decisions based on personal prejudices not objective reasoning or some utilitarian ideal.

You’re an evil man Sushi lol, brutal question.
I would start with the worst criminals and the terminally ill. The severly mentally disabled would probably be next. Then the oldest and work my way down. Id ask for volunteers as well.
Would I get the numbers from those groups?

The OP didn't explain the scenario in which the lives are being saved/taken, so I think the vaccination example does fit here. Actually it's a timely example, because of the current debate about what the laws should say regarding mandatory vaccines for children.

Most reasonable people would say that even though we know a certain number of people will die as a result of adverse reactions to vaccines, we have to vaccinate to protect the majority.

I see your point

That officially makes you something like an internet miracle :grin: :joke:

I have thought this out. The decision lies with you. If you abstain everyone dies.

This is usual reaction to such hypotheticals. People look for a loophole rather than take on the moral problem at face value. I see you’ve actually thought about it though and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to offer a genuine public answer (I don’t think there is such a thing!)

Funny, I thought about asking for volunteers too with the diffrence being I would kill everyone else, and myself, letting those that volunteered live. Of course in “reality” I’d very likely not go to such an extreme but I’d certainly let volunteers live and no doubt be too cowardly to kill myself and thus end up with a sorry and sad existence with my blood stained hands in partial madness - or maybe I’d get over it?

You’d certainly be on my list then ;)

The logistics were not part of the scenario. Take it at face value.

Hey which people are more valuable? I will kill everyone subject to the whims of my blind prejudice.

I think it goes beyond even surgeries etc, we accept the deaths of very many people on a daily basis for convenience alone, for example the speed limit. If it was lowered to 5mph everywhere it would drastically reduce the related deaths, but we do not because it wouldnt be practical or convenient so we just accept that yes, people are going to die so that we can get around faster.

I take it not killing the volunteers is their reward for being so selfless? Isnt that kinda shitting on their decision to do the right thing? You’re taking it away from them.
Also, what would be the point of killing yourself? The world would be leaderless not to mention there are surely better candidates than you to be killed, like murderers?
Lastly, im a little confused about the purpose of your thought experiment, I thought once I answered you would have sime sort of follow up. (Looks like I was the only one that actually answered your question too, rather than completely miss the point. TP made me laugh out loud with the difficulties of killing a billion people in 48 hours)

That's true!

Dig deeper ... the follow up is simple enough. Now the same scenario but there are no criminals or terminally ill people; not that I imagine you’d have made up the 1 billion with those alone.

Yes, hence I asked if you were satisfied the numbers could be gotten to a billion with the groups I mentioned. You didnt answer.
Obviously its horrific to choose these 1 billion people, so Im gonna want to stop selecting groups as soon as the numbers are satisfied.

I’m more interested in what the process makes you think about and feel like. Not really interested in an actual reply (which I wouldn’t believe anyway).

I would try and think practically and feel good about saving the human race and feel bad about whatever groups didnt make the cut that didnt really deserve it.
I do not think there is anything sacred or intrinsically valuable about life, so there would be large swaths of people that had to die that I wouldnt be upset about at all. A billion is such a huge number though, eventually it would be necassary to select people that have merit and it would be upsetting to include.

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies. — I like sushi

Goodness, there are so many possibilities! Obviously nuclear bombs would be the way to go. Do I have to stay UNDER 1 billion, or can I maybe do more? Once one overcame the fussy inhibition of killing 1 billion, killing 2, 3, or 4 billion would be hard to resist.

Europe and North America would make a nice grouping, if the assigned world leader happened to not be European or North American, perish the thought. The Middle East would work, if one threw in Pakistan and Indonesia. South America and subsaharan Africa have the advantage of keeping fallout way south of Eurasia and North America--too bad for Australia and New Zealand. China or India? Either one. Both?

Do I get a prize if I succeed in killing 1 billion tomorrow? A new IPad, the Nobel, a gift certificate? Something?

You get the choice to think about it and see where it leads your thoughts ... or not :)

What is the point of mocking the thought experiment? You just letting everyone know that killing a billion people is bad? You are under the impression that anyone thinks otherwise?
“Attention everyone! Bitter Crank would never kill a billion people and your a psycho who wants to nuke everybody if you answer the thought experiment! Everybody get that?!”
Virtue signaling, is that it?

Ask for volunteers -there are already plenty of people willing to undergo assisted sucide and euthanasia or I’m sure others who’ve lived long enough to feel content leaving, especially for the sake of a noble cause like preserving humanity- just aggregate all of these people globally, and if there’s a remainder, blindly release some sort lethal agent to which everyone, including you as a leader is susceptible to.

The point is to make the decision explicit and as impartial, responsibility diffuse, and random as possible.

I think that is what Sushi had in mind when he took the “lottery” option off the table. The point I think is to have to struggle with the morality of it rather than deligate the responsibility to fate.
I do not even think thats the fairest way to do it anyway, a really really important and good person could die while a truly despicable evil person gets to live. Makes no sense to me, we should get rid of people we don’t need or want first.

I have thought this out. — I like sushi

Ok.

The decision lies with you. If you abstain everyone dies. — I like sushi

I clearly saw that.

This is usual reaction to such hypotheticals. People look for a loophole rather than take on the moral problem at face value. I see you’ve actually thought about it though and I certainly wouldn’t expect anyone to offer a genuine public answer (I don’t think there is such a thing!) — I like sushi

I was actually looking for the reason for the hypothetical. What is the basis for discussion?

Exactly. And part of this is about pointing out people’s willingness to reduce the problem to one of blithe amusement or a mere matter of “practicality” rather than facing the horror within.

I’ll make another thread with a different hypothetical too. A take on the Trolley problem.

Can you expand on “mere practicality”? Why wouldnt that be a valid way of making the decision, if you had to make it. You wouldnt want it to be a purely emotional thing right? (“How many people in France, I hate the French!”)