91 réponses à ce sujet

[maegi46]

Mercedes-Benz wrote...

Depends, if they were stupid pot-heads or something of the like, I would sacrifice them, but if those thousands were people like Tesla or Newton, then no, I wouldn't sacrifice them. It depends of course on who the million are as well.

Raises a glass and makes a toast. "May you never get elected into any position of political power that allows you to make any decisions about people's well being"

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...

Depends on what people/species. I'd rather save 1000 elite scientists/athletes/artists/etc. than one million common people.

That depends on the athletes. I'd sacrifice a trillion Ashely Coles and John Terrys to save 10 mushrooms, let alone a million people

[rabidhanar]

Yes I would, in my mind you are doing the correct and proper decision. Killing a few for the rest is the logical approach to this problem. Letting ones emotions dictate what a person does will generally lead to problems later in life.

[maegi46]

War in real life pretty much centers on this theory. There are always casualties of innocents. Which is why I hate wars. I still say we should resolve differences in an arena. Put our leader against theirs, whoever dies was wrong.

[maegi46]

btw LOL

[JaegerBane]

maegi46 wrote...

Mercedes-Benz wrote...

Depends, if they were stupid pot-heads or something of the like, I would sacrifice them, but if those thousands were people like Tesla or Newton, then no, I wouldn't sacrifice them. It depends of course on who the million are as well.

Raises a glass and makes a toast. "May you never get elected into any position of political power that allows you to make any decisions about people's well being"

Let's be honest here - saving people that are worth more to the human race as a whole isn't really that irresponsible.

[rabidhanar]

maegi46 wrote...
 I still say we should resolve differences in an arena. Put our leader against theirs, whoever dies was wrong.

As long as my leader gets a better weapon than I am happy with this option.
If the arena was chosen, you and i both know that the world would fight and kill each other to obtain the fittest and strongest leader available. More deaths would probably occur than what happens in wars. Sadly, the human race is very violent.

[Kaiser Shepard]

I would probably sacrifice the million if I felt the thousand deserved it more.



My Shep isn't going to look back anymore: If I have to go all Saren on Kaidan, so be it. If I have to perform a colony drop to kill a planet of indoctrinated, gladly. If I have to command the Normandy into the heart of darkness only to never come back, it will be done.

[Costin_Razvan]

If that death of one thousand people could mean the salvation of one million, then yes. Gladly in fact.( though don't assume this would mean I would be able to sleep well at night )

The mafia leader asked "if you found out that in order to cure all the diseases there is you had to kill a child, would you kill that child? Saving billions of lives in the process(From future diseases and present ones)

Yes, I would. I would find it incredibly selfish not to do that.

[Tooneyman]

All people need is a man and a woman. Those million can be brought back. Just might take another couple thousand years of breeding and in breeding and letting evolution and mutation take its course. hehe.



Yes I'm being a hippo!

[Inquisitor Recon]

It depends. Would those 1000 saved follow me and the new order I plan to establish?

[lovgreno]

Both options are bad so a situation like that should be avoided. In the cases this does happen it usualy takes a few decades to figure out what was the best option. So I must avoid answering this as it's a too simplified question. It depends on the situation.



But if I wanted to feel like a badass cynical realist who thinks I can be above personal opinions and personal morality, especialy the naive morality of people weaker than me, I suppose killing the thousand would make sense.

[Bron Avery]

Why not kill millions, TO SAVE BILLIONS! (cookie if get reference, not doctor evil)

[Siansonea]

Where humans (and presumably other sapient species) are concerned, it's about quality, not quantity. Would I sacrifice a thousand scientists to save a million brain-dead redneck ****holes? Uh, no. Would I sacrifice the the million BDRAs to save the scientists? Sure. Heck, I'd probably do it just for the Renegade points.

[Aggie Punbot]

DreamerOfMakeBelieve wrote...

This option came up when speaking to Anderson about Saren. I have to say it makes a good point....if you have to sacrifice a million to save a thousand. Would you?

Sacrifice 1 million people to save a mere 1 thousand people? That would take some pretty extreme circumstances there to get me to agree to do that, such as who are the people dying, who would I have to save, how would the doomed perish, what benefits/consequences would there be to each decision, etc. etc..

[AdamNW]

Yes.



Really, who the hell would think you are a bad person for sacrificing a child in exchange for the lives of billions?

[Lemonwizard]

JaegerBane wrote...

Lemonwizard wrote...
However, the ecological niche of diseases in every environment is to reduce the population size of animals, preventing overpopulation that would deplete the ecosystem's natural resources.

Unless you're one of those Gaia tree-hugger nutters, no disease on earth exists for the purposes of holding populations in check. They have that effect, yes, but that's not why they're there. They're there because they evolved in an environment favourable to them.

Ultimately, there is no built-in trigger that ensures the Earth's carrying capacity is never exceeded. A sobering thought...

You don't know what a niche is, do you?


It's not why it's there, why it's there is because that was the method of survival that suited that species best in its evolution. A niche is the function it performs within an ecosystem now that it is there.


And while a niche is not the purpose for which a species evolved (because species don't actually evolve for purposes), and members of the same species can actually fill different niches if present in different environments, the removal of a species from an environment without other species present in appropriate numbers to continue filling that niche can have disastrous consequences for the ecosystem in question.


Remove a predator, its prey has a population explosion within a few generations, they consume more food than the environment can replenish, that prey and every other species in the environment that also depends on that food source starves.



Eliminating all disease, unless deployed at the same time as another technology that also produced enough extra food to account for the increase in population size of every animal which otherwise would have suffered from affliction by that disease (or culling their numbers by more conventional methods), would completely fuck up every ecosystem there is.

[luk3us]

As long as the math is on my side sure why not.

[MTN Dew Fanatic]

I hate in movies and books where they won't kill the little child to save millions of others. It's just stupid not to, there will be children that will die now, because of no cure that you could have, but don't, because you won't kill one child.

[Nightwriter]

I don't feel like I could tell you what I would do realistically.

I could tell you what I think I would do now, but if the actual situation was sitting in my lap and I was really faced with it, I don't think it would be the same for any of us.

[Thajocoth]

There is no such thing as an lose-lose scenario. It's simply a matter of finding the truly clever solution that's hiding in the specifics.



Assuming that one cannot find the clever solution, the cleaver solution is the next best... However, I would have someone else commit the act. Someone who would be far better at it than I.



Here's an example of a similar situation... You perform an experiment on yourself and make yourself immune to death. You regenerate, don't age, can breathe air, can't get sick, diamond bones, ect... However, you're mind is slowly fading. If it fades completely you'll die and your body will run entirely on instinct. You've gained a new instinct you can easily ignore, to kill people. You can delay the loss of your mind by killing 1/1000th of the people you'd kill if running on instinct. What do you do? You have to re-make the decision every time, in this scenario, making things more difficult.



Correct answer: Build a rocket. Aim for a black hole.



There's always an alternative.

[InvaderErl]

MTN Dew Fanatic wrote...

I hate in movies and books where they won't kill the little child to save millions of others. It's just stupid not to, there will be children that will die now, because of no cure that you could have, but don't, because you won't kill one child.

You should watch Battlestar Galactica.

Thajocoth wrote...

There is no such thing as an lose-lose
scenario. It's simply a matter of finding the truly clever solution
that's hiding in the specifics.

You could almost say you don't believe in the No-Win scenario.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 07 juillet 2010 - 01:13 .

[Lemonwizard]

Thajocoth wrote...

There is no such thing as an lose-lose scenario. It's simply a matter of finding the truly clever solution that's hiding in the specifics.

Assuming that one cannot find the clever solution, the cleaver solution is the next best... However, I would have someone else commit the act. Someone who would be far better at it than I.

Here's an example of a similar situation... You perform an experiment on yourself and make yourself immune to death. You regenerate, don't age, can breathe air, can't get sick, diamond bones, ect... However, you're mind is slowly fading. If it fades completely you'll die and your body will run entirely on instinct. You've gained a new instinct you can easily ignore, to kill people. You can delay the loss of your mind by killing 1/1000th of the people you'd kill if running on instinct. What do you do? You have to re-make the decision every time, in this scenario, making things more difficult.

Correct answer: Build a rocket. Aim for a black hole.

There's always an alternative.

Rockets are expensive, just dig a pit too deep for instinct-you to figure a way out of.



Or, better idea, don't do retarded surgeries on yourself in the first place.